Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, around 10:00 on January 5, 2013, was a victim D (year 64) and a vision due to vehicle traffic problems in front of Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, due to vehicle traffic problems.
In the middle of the cement wall, the victim was faced with the rear head of the victim by pushing the victim's chest with the two descendants, and the damaged trees faced with cement walls, which led the victim to the two sides requiring medical treatment for about 14 days.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;
1. A written diagnosis of injury;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on standing photographs;
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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant did not have inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts constituting self-defense in response to the victim's assault even if the victim exercised tangible power.
In light of the above evidence, the defendant's act of assaulting the victim as stated in the facts constituting self-defense in light of the following facts: (a) comprehensively taking account of the above evidence (the victim's statement is consistent with the investigative agency from this time to this court; (b) it does not seem to have any other reason to reject the credibility of the above statement); and (c) it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted bodily injury by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime. In light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, etc., it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act is due to the mixed intent of attack and defense against the victim, even if not, it cannot