On July 26, 2017, the Defendant, at the coffee store, called "D" located in the old apartment commercial building in Ansan-si, around 19:00 on July 26, 2017, requested the victim to return a mobile phone lent to the victim E (n, 47 years of age) while communicating with the victim, but the victim refused it, and the victim refused it, thereby making the victim's arms available in his hand, and francing the coffee in the victim's face, and francing it into the victim's face, the Defendant francing the victim about two weeks of the right shoulder and the francing of the above arms.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the outcomes of CCTV images recycling;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel as to Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that the defendant is responsible for the victim's liability at the beginning of the dispute, the victim is aground, and the defendant is again aground, etc.) of the suspended sentence constitutes an act of self-help in order to find his handphones brought by the victim or an act of self-defense in order to defend himself from the injury of the victim, and thus, illegality is excluded.

However, in light of the background leading up to the dispute between the parties recognized by the above evidence and the form of violence, the act of the defendant cannot be deemed as constituting a self-help act under Article 23 of the Criminal Act or a legitimate defense under Article 21.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.