Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On December 7, 2013, at around 08:00, the Defendant used assaulting the victim E (year 52) in a D management office located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to lock up the victim, to sit up the victim’s body on the part of the victim, to sit up the victim’s hand, and to cut off the body with the victim’s hand, and suffered injury, such as a 1st blick blish, etc., which requires approximately 6 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing recording records;

1. Article 262 of the Criminal Act and Articles 262, 260 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines for the crime;

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

3. 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 asserted that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or excessive defense as it is aimed at defending unfair infringement of the defendant's physical safety, and thus constitutes self-defense or excessive defense.

If self-defense prescribed in Article 21 of the Criminal Act is established, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the kind and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense.

In addition, if it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was at the first place with the intent of an attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unjust attack, and that the act was at the same time an attack, and thus, the act was at the same time an attack, and thus, constitutes self-defense, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004). According to the above evidence, the victim is the defendant.