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

At around 21:00 on December 14, 2012, the Defendant discovered the victim D (the age of 62) within the guard room of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C apartment house, and called that the victim would not enter the guard room, but, upon receiving a claim from the victim, the Defendant got the victim to receive the victim’s resistance, the Defendant carried out the victim’s scambling of the victim’s scam on his hand by cutting down the front scam of the victim’s scam on hand, scambling the scambling of the victim’s chest, and pushed up two weeks after the victim’s breast part was pushed down, and scambling the scambling wall that requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness D's legal statement, each of the witness E and F's legal statement;

1. Part concerning D's statement in the second interrogation protocol of the defendant against the police;

1. The protocol of statement of the police against D, and the protocol of statement of the police against E;

1. Complaint;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged parts;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are passive resistance and defense that the defendant continued to remove the victim from his/her head, which constitutes self-defense or legitimate act. However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant asserted that the defendant committed a harmful act such as the statement in the facts charged against the victim in the case where he/she was satisfy and fyed with the victim, and in light of the motive, circumstance, form, etc. of the fighting, it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act that does not violate the legal interests of his/her own, and thus, the above argument is rejected.