Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

At around 09:30 on May 14, 2013, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim D (the 52 years of age, n, n) operated by the victim D (the her husband F) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, such as the victim and the victim’s her husband F, in which the Defendant and the victim claimed her husband F, by her flabing her fat, her fat away from the bottom by her bating the bat of the victim by her bating the bat, her chest the victim’s bat, her bat with her bat, and her bat with her bat, and

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the diagnosis certificate of injury, the upper part photographic;

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Determination as to the defense of the defendant and his/her defense counsel or the assertion of legitimate act under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that when the victim was forced to attack from the victim at the time of the instant case, the defendant committed an assault against the victim as stated in the facts charged while setting up against the victim to defend him. This constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the victim's legitimate self-defense or social norms against an unfair harmful act.

2. On the grounds delineated below, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not acceptable on the grounds that it is without merit. In a case where it is reasonable to deem that an offender’s act was committed with the intent of an attack, rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and the act was committed against it, the act has the nature of the act of attack as well as the act of attack, and thus, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004). The evidence presented in its holding.