On April 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 11:10 on the top of the first floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C in order to prevent a victim D (year 61) from parking, and carried the front window behind the victim’s vehicle, which was in dispute with the victim, inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the right-hand 3 balance, which requires medical treatment for about 14 days in consideration of the victim when he/she was satisfing a satch, satisfing a satch, satching a satch, and satched a satch.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police interrogation protocol on the accused and D;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. On-site reports on violent incidents;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a photograph of damage (record No. 36 pages);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (one day: 50,000 won) of the Criminal Act;

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel against Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the suspended sentence: 1,00,000 won for a sentence; 1,000 won for a criminal defendant had no special criminal record; 2,00 won for a victim's intentional action or preemptive attack; 3, there are circumstances to be taken into account in the course of the crime, and the degree of violence and damage therefrom are not serious) and the defendant's act constitutes self-defense. However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense, since the defendant's act is judged to be aimed at an attack rather than to defend the victim's unfair infringement. Thus, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

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