Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 8, 2014, around 15:10, the Defendant found the victim E (year 71) in the Defendant’s residence in Seongbuk-gu Seoul and 501(D) on the ground that water is sandb, and franched the victim’s desire to be called “sprinke”, franching the victim’s buck, bucking the victim’s buckbucks, and assaulting the victim’s buckbucks for about two weeks, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as the victim’s bucks and tensions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Arrest reports and investigation reports on flagrant offenders (the statement of the police officer present at the scene);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (E);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel recognized only the part of the crime, which was contained in the judgment, as a passive defensive act in the course of setting up against the victim’s assault, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

However, the acts of attack and defense have been conducted through a series of acts of attack and defense, and at the same time, the acts of attack and defense have the nature of both areas, which are the acts of attack. Thus, even if they appear to be fighting, in fact, one party unilaterally commits an attack and the other party exercised force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack, barring special circumstances, such as where he/she unilaterally committed an attack and the other party exercised force as a means of resistance to escape, it cannot be said that only one party’s act was committed for defense or constitutes self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 2011).