On August 23, 2012, at around 14:00, the Defendant installed a crypter in the Epenta located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and carried out a crypryp for the victim F (the age of 46) and the Defendant’s cryp for electrical distribution problems, first of all, with the Defendant, frying the victim’s chest, which had been set up against the Defendant, one time, and one time, with the Defendant’s cryp, fry the Defendant’s chest, and affixed one time the Defendant’s cryp with his fry, one time, and one time, with the Defendant’s face and clothes, which require approximately two-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocol of examination of witnesses G in the third protocol of trial;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of photograph (F)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. A postponed sentence under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances leading up to a crime, the degree of injury of the victim, and the fact that there is no risk of re-offending): Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion about a fine of 500,000 won (the period of detention in a workhouse: 50,000 won per day) and defense counsel; Defendant and defense counsel asserted to the purport that the Defendant only carried breath, but did not inflict an injury on the victim in order to not meet the situation where the Defendant was assaulted by the victim.

In light of the background leading up to the crime of this case, the background leading up to the crime of this case, the victim F and the testimony of the witness of this case, etc., it is reasonable to view that the exercise of force by the defendant and the victim has the nature of attack as to each other in the situation where the defendant and the victim are placed at sight. It is difficult to regard only the defendant's act as an act for simple defense. Thus, the above assertion by

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.