Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 25, 2012, around 00:30 on March 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) reported that the victim D (the years of age 41, south) was fluored by a male and a trial with the fluorite, and had the victim's head debt fluort and fluorted about 10 meters, leading about about 14 days to the victim; and (b) caused the victim's injury, such as cluoral salt, requiring treatment for about 14

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements made by some defendants in the third and fourth trial records;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the fifth trial records;

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the eight-time protocol of the trial;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. An injury diagnosis certificate (D);

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Statutory mitigation under Articles 21(2) and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act and thus, is not unlawful.

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant, while on the road, was using the victim's head in order to report and block the situation of threatening the victim's head while using the victim's name influor and trial expenses, and this constitutes an act to defend the current unfair infringement on the body of the person who has failed to obtain the name.

However, in order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the complete completion of the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence cited by the victim, which can be comprehensively acknowledged.