Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 08:00 on May 11, 2013, the Defendant, a neighboring victim C, and the “E” restaurant located in Heung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongju, concluded a dispute over each other’s land boundary issue.

During that period, the victim's body was sealed with each other with the defendant, and breathed with breathing breath while breathing the breath while breathing the breath, thereby causing injury to the defendant, such as divers and breathal, breathal and breathal part, breathal part, and breathal part, which require treatment for about three weeks.

In response to the above assault, the Defendant, against the victim’s left-hand fingers, brought an injury to the victim, thereby making up for about two weeks of the right-hand fingers requiring medical treatment. In response to the above assault, the Defendant sustained an open room for the left-hand fingers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

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 asserted that the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is self-defense since the victim's son's son's son's son's son who was entering the defendant's entrance to defend the victim against the defendant's knife and the defendant's arb.

However, according to the evidence of the court below, the defendant's body is closely sealed and satisfed by the defendant's fingers while taking a bath with the victim. Thus, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a reasonable act to defend the defendant's unjust infringement, and rather, it cannot be viewed as self-defense because it has the nature of an attack against the victim at the same time as an attack against the victim.

(2) The above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted.

However, the reason for sentencing is due to the assault of the victim.