Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The Defendant inflicted injury on the number of days of treatment, such as treating the victim E (son, 51 years of age) and the date of the accident, on the ground that the victim's chest and face part of the victim's chest and face were pushed off, and the victim did not go to the death, in the process of moving the taxi in front of the Suwon-si's "D Skina" in Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Records of photographs taken by each suspect on the spot and by the suspect respectively; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the relevant photographic records of the case (the damaged part of the suspect in the course of investigation)

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense, since the defendant's act is an act to defend against the improper attack against himself/herself.

In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was at the first place with the intent of attacking one another rather than with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was at the same time an attack is at the same time an attack and has the nature of an attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed an act of defense of a political party (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant’s crime appears to have the character of an attack, which is the defense against the victim’s attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate defense.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

The sentencing reasons indicated in the record, such as the circumstance in which the defendant committed the instant crime and the degree of damage are not obvious.