A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On September 5, 2013, at least 21:40 on September 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim E (50 years of age) and E (45 years of age), f (45 years of age), G (43 years of age) and his body fighting attached to the previous monetary problem; (b) placed the victim F’s face at one time as drinking; and (c) placed the victims “this f’s face at the above D’s workplace,” indicating the victim’s face at the above D’s workplace (25cm in length); (d) placed the victim F’s face at the victim’s workplace; (e) took the victim’s face at the victim’s workplace (30cm in length) and the victim’s face at the victim’s workplace; and (e) took the victim’s face at 20cm in length and 20cm in length; and (e) took the victim’s face at the victim’s workplace.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the accused, E, F, G, and H;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. At the time of determining the Defendant’s assertion on field photographs and CCTV meta card, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense, as it led to the instant case in order to oppose the collective assault from the victims.

In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of legal interests infringed by the act of infringement, the complete completion of the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interests infringed by the act of defense.

In addition, in a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was committed against it, it cannot be deemed as self-defense, since the act is a defensive act and has the nature of the act of attack at the same time.

Supreme Court Decision 200 June 25, 2004