Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 28, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 21:10 on March 28, 2011, at the Haak-gun apartment parking lot in Haan-gun, Haan-nam, the Defendant inflicted a bodily injury on the victim’s head by drinking f(48 years of age) and the entrance management, leaving the victim’s head one time at one time, leaving the victim in a brush, leaving the victim’s head by hand, and caused the victim’s body by drinking 21 days at one time.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Ministry of Medical and Medical Affairs and the Korean language interpretation of medical records;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the cost of lawsuit against the defendant under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defense counsel asserted that even if the defendant had committed an injury to the F in the parking lot on one side or by pushing the F in a vehicle parked with the body of F, such act constitutes legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, since there are considerable grounds for doing so to defend the present unfair infringement, such as assault from F, and thus, it constitutes legitimate act under Article 21 (1) of the Criminal Act, or because it is merely passive defensive act to prevent F from violence, and it is merely an act that does not violate social rules and thus does not violate social rules.

In light of the background and method of the instant injury and the degree of damage, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant’s act is merely a passive defensive act to escape from an unfair attack against himself/herself, even in light of all the circumstances and circumstances asserted by the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

Accordingly, the defendant and the defendant.