On September 13:20 on September 12, 2015, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim E (44 years) in the D office located in Ischeon-si C, E (4 years), while making a dispute with the victim, and taking the chest and face of the victim due to the drinking home, and caused injury to the victim, such as scarbbing, fry, etc., before giving approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (E);

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. A fine not exceeding 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the degree of injury of the victim is relatively minor, the victim does not wish to punish the defendant, and the circumstances favorable to the first offender are considered) of the suspended sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 59(1) and defense counsel’s assertion of the defendant and defense counsel, the defendant and defense counsel asserted that the illegality of the victim constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense, since the victim’s face when the victim took part in the defendant’s timber at one arms on the day of the instant case, and the victim’s face when the victim makes a passive resistance to avoid this.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant and the victim have a dispute about parking on the day of the case, and the victim can first recognize the fact that the defendant and the victim have fighting one another's chest, and the perpetrator's act is not to defend the victim's unfair attack, but to attack one another with the intent of attack, and it is reasonable to deem that the perpetrator's act was committed against the victim's attack. Thus, the perpetrator's act constitutes a "political act" or a "political defense" in which only one party's act was committed, because it has the nature of the act of attack at the same time.