If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On September 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 22:50 on September 17, 2012, the victim D (the age of 57) around the 102 suspender of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 102, and the Defendant, the husband of the Defendant, posted the printed material on the entrance bulletin board and the elevator board, etc., to the Defendant, who is the husband of the Defendant, brought an injury to the victim, such as a cerebral dye, in which detailed treatment for about three weeks is not possible; (b) the Defendant, who was on the side, took care of her chest while carrying out a bath, brought an injury to the victim, such as a brash, a s

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Results of the reproduction of a CD recorded on the spot;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to copies of the injury diagnosis report;

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 for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the instant facts charged cannot be acknowledged, and that the instant case is a legitimate act, since the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, inasmuch as the victim’s clothes are frighten, sealed, and obstructed the Defendant, the victim spawned the victim from his own perspective, and did not have any injury to the victim.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant's left hand sealed the victim's chest, thereby causing the victim's injury. Unlike the defendant's assertion, the defendant's act is not passive behavior to defend the victim's unfair attack, but it cannot be viewed as an act without illegality such as a justifiable act.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.