Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is a person who has been a restaurant restaurant, and the victim D (the 36 years of age), victim E (the remaining and 35 years of age) is also a married couple.

1. The Defendant, at around 21:00 on October 30, 2016, committed an assault against the victim D, on the grounds that her husband takes tobacco in the vicinity of the victim’s children, at the test of “C cafeteria”, her husband took part in the victim’s fluence, and her husband took part in the victim’s fluence, and her husband took part in the victim’s fluence, and her husband took part in the victim’s fluence, and her husband took part in the victim’s fluence, and the fluence took part in the victim’s flu

2. 피해자 E에 대한 폭행 피고인은 전항 기재 일시, 장소에서 D을 폭행하는 자신의 멱살을 잡고 가게 안으로 밀어 넣는 피해자 E의 목을 할큄으로써 피해자를 폭행하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made in relation to G, E, and D;

1. Application of field photographs, victim E photographs, victim D-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime (elective of a punishment);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Regarding the issue of assault against the victim E in determining the legitimate defense by Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the act to defend the victim's attack constitutes a legitimate defense.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, it is acknowledged that the injured person committed an assault in the course of assault, such as the Defendant’s scambling up with D, and the Defendant committed an assault with the wheels of the injured person to the restaurant. When considering the degree of the injured person’s damage, the background of the offense, the situation at the time of the offense, etc., the Defendant’s assault’s act constitutes an attack and constitutes a passive defense, and is within the socially reasonable scope.