Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On June 30, 2011, at around 03:40, the Defendant faced with the victim E and shoulder in a “D” club located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and caused the victim’s behavior and vision. The Defendant, as a hand, boomed the victim’s f’s eat, which is the victim’s ethbbbbbbane, once, boomed the victim’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f

When the defendant continued to go back to the victims in the previous club, the defendant broken the beer's disease on the floor, and led the victims.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim G, such as tearing injury in the treatment days, and the number of treatment days to the victim E, and assaulted the victim F.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statements G and F in the fifth trial records;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of victims and suspects injuries;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of each injury, the choice of fines) and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the selection of fines) concerning the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that even though there was a fact that the victims engaged in fals or assaulted, this constitutes self-defense to defend the victims' attack.

However, in a case where a person is satisfyed with one another’s intent of attack, and received an attack and satisfyed against it, the harmful act is an act of attack at the same time, and it does not constitute self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). The records of this case are shown.