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

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

Punishment of the crime

The above revision was made to the extent that it does not interfere with the defendant's right of defense.

On September 27, 2017, around 02:30 on September 27, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the victim's face by drinking in a factory located in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the victim E (35 tax) and the Defendant, due to the reason that the Defendant was neglected to work, making it possible for the injured to take a drinking face from the victim, and going beyond the floor, and boomed the victim's face from the victim who was on the body of the Defendant to take a drinking face suitable for the drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the photographic (damage inflicted upon relevant persons);

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's defense counsel's assertion was an attacked by the victim to cause a threat of life and prevent the victim's attack, and that the defendant's drinking was an attacked by the victim, which is to escape from an unfair attack of the victim, and thus constitutes a legitimate defense.

2. Where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of attacked with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act of attacked with one another, and caused the attack against it, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense, since it has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the defensive act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court, the Defendant and the victim were in dispute with each other as a matter of on-site work.