If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

At around 12:00 on June 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) brought a dispute with the victim E and rubber straw points located in Spocheon City C due to the unauthorized use of the victim E and rubber straw; (b) brought the victim’s fingers to the victim on the ground that the victim’s fingers, who was the husband of the victim, f, and her husband, f, and the victim, when she was sated and pusheded, the victim satisd with his/her fingers, and her booms the victim satch for about two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statements made by witnesses F, E and G in the second protocol of the trial;

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. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, since the defendant's act was a satisfe of the victim's fingers, although the victim did not bat down and unsatfe the bat.

2. According to the statement in the witness F, E, and G, while the defendant and F were engaged in sprinking and pushing in sprinking and pushing in sprinks, it is difficult to see that the victim, who is a woman with smaller height than the defendant, was unable to cover the defendant's sprinking. According to the statement in this court, while the defendant and F were engaged in sprinking and pushing in sprinks, the defendant is also the victim, and the victim was pushed in the victim's face on his hand, and it is recognized that the defendant committed an act identical to the above criminal facts with F and the victim's intent of attacking one another. Thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant's act constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.