A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Criminal facts

1. On March 23, 2017, at around 13:30 on March 23, 2017, the Defendant was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s husband E in front of the riverhouse located in the Hannam-gun, Hannam-gun, which was in dispute with the Defendant’s husband. The Defendant’s assault against the Victim C (Vin, 58 years of age) “sprink

(h) In doing so for the same year, the victim’s left side of the victim’s hand was assaulted on one occasion by taking the victim’s hand.

2. At the time and place specified in paragraph 1, the Defendant inflicted injury on the Victim F on the victim F, who was the husband of C at the time of C as described in paragraph 1, caused the victim’s left eye to the Victim F (the other 54 years old), her husband, on a one-time hand, resulting in the victim’s injury, such as “damage to the prevention without any entry of this water,” which requires approximately two weeks medical treatment on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and F;

1. Each police statement with respect to C and F;

1. A complaint filed by C and F;

1. Application of Galan and Tear statutes;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of individual fines for punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with severe injury) shall be applied to concurrent crimes;

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

1. The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the act under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as stated in the judgment of the court below, constitutes a legitimate defense and thus the illegality is excluded.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court including all the above evidence, the defendant's act as stated in Paragraph 1 of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment can be recognized as an act in the process of wrapping the defendant and the victim's intent to attack. Thus, such an act cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense.

Therefore, the defendant's defense counsel's argument is not reasonable, and thus, it is not acceptable.