If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

At around 03:30 on January 14, 2012, the Defendant demanded the victim E, who was mealed in the D restaurant located in Suwon-si C, Suwon-si, that the victim E, who was tabled in the next table, would have followed the table and avoided the disturbance.

In this regard, the victim made a defect in the bath theory that "I will write down, write down, and go to the will," and the victim's face was 2-3 scamed by drinking, and the victim was 28 days by getting off the floor on the part of the victim, and was inflicted an injury on the victim, such as a soften-day scam, fry, and scam, scam, etc. for 28 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant asserts to the purport that the defendant's act is legitimate self-defense or legitimate act as a passive resistance act, where he does not know that he would face the victim E or get off the floor by taking advantage of the victim.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence held by the police statements and the written diagnosis of injury of the victim E, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s assault was committed in the course of dispute with the victim, taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence at the time of the instant crime and the developments leading up to the Defendant’s assault.

However, in the case of fighting, the harmful act is both a defensive act and an attack, and thus does not constitute self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). The defendant's act is both a defensive act and an attack act, and other methods of assault by the defendant.