around 19:00 on October 18, 2012, the Defendant demanded D to transfer food waste generated from the parking lot on the first floor of the building in question to another place. The Defendant, who did not comply with D, was moving food waste to D’s restaurant, caused a dispute with D while moving food waste to D’s restaurant.

In addition, D with D's hand, the Defendant d's d's d's spath and flab by hand, and the Defendant d's spath and flab by hand.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on D, “the right saws damage (e.g., the right saws damage) and the right saws salt,” which require DNA treatment for a period of three weeks.

2. The defendant's assertion is merely a passive resistance that D d's balbbb and balb and balb, and d's falb and falb, and the defendant's act does not result in D's act, and even if so, the defendant's act is self-defense.

3. Determination

A. According to the records of this case as to whether the crime of injury constitutes the element of the crime of injury, the fact that the Defendant and D, as recorded in the facts charged, did not have any dispute with the view to the bating problem around October 18, 2012, and D, when she did so, fatd the Defendant’s fating, and the Defendant got off the Defendant’s arms, and during that process, D was injured by the Defendant’s 4th hand hand of the right hand.

(However, among the facts charged, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant gets off the D's loss). Accordingly, the causal relationship between the defendant's act and the result of the D's injury can be acknowledged, and the defendant's act constitutes the elements of the crime of injury.

B. According to the records of this case 1 as to the existence of the grounds for rejecting illegality, the defendant and D only expressed their voice to D during the process of paying the trial cost, and expressed their desire or body.