1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

At around 08:40 on July 2, 2014, the Defendant, while taking away the goods of the victim D (the age of 34) in a warehouse managed by the Defendant in the Gui-si, had the victim resisted against the victim, and had the victim suffered bodily injury, such as dump dump dump, which requires treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Inquiries and answers to inquiries, and application of medical treatment statutes

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. As to the claim of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that the act of the perpetrator’s act was an attack against the victim’s assault and did not contain flabbbbing the victim’s face, and that the act of drinking flabing can constitute self-defense. Where it is reasonable to deem that the perpetrator’s act was flabed with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack rather than for defending the victim’s wrongful attack, and that the act was committed against one another and was committed as a defense, the act has the nature of attack at the same time, and thus, cannot be deemed as self-defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 Decided March 28, 2000). According to the above evidence, the Defendant’s act can be deemed as self-defense in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s face drinking by the victim; and (b) the process, degree, and content of the case; and (c) the Defendant’s act can be deemed as having the nature of the act of attack and defense at the same time.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.