Around 00:00 on March 18, 2017, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol within the main point of “D” located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was a trial cost on the ground that the Defendant, a victim E (56 years of age), who is another customer, had “frighting to smoke within the store.” Even after the Defendant left the main point, the Defendant her hand, carried the Defendant’s neck with the Defendant’s hand, and led the Defendant to the front of “G Publication Board” located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.

On March 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) in front of the G Publication Board located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 02:3, 2017; (b) in the idea that the damaged person would threaten the damaged person, as above, entered the above G Publication Board 244, which is the Defendant’s residence; (c) and (d) took a dangerous object at the location ( approximately 20 cm in total length, approximately 10 cm in length); and (d) in the event the injured person was her back, the injured person discovered the Defendant, and subsequently escaped the damaged person, and then the injured person was her back, again her back to the back of the injured person; and (d) returned back to the back of the injured person, and thereafter, she find the left part of the injured person, which requires a medical treatment of approximately 6 weeks on the left side of the injured person, and find part of the victim once, which requires a medical treatment of approximately 6 weeks on the left side.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement made by the defendant to the effect that the damaged person has kniff in the transition held;

1. Statement of reference witnesses by the prosecution concerning E;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of CCTV-recording CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not have the intent to injure. Even if the intent was acknowledged, the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate defense, and thus, constitutes grounds for reduction or exemption of punishment.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court: