1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 16, 2014, at around 14:20, the injured Defendant had not been given appraisal to the victim E (the 63 years old age) from the Busan B-gu 34th century on the ground that the victim was able to take a bath, and the victim was able to take a part in the part of the victim’s inner part of drinking water, and was sprinking with the victim for approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. The Defendant assaulted the victim at the above temporary location, by taking the face of the Victim F (77 years of age) who took the said trade fighting one time as drinking, at the victim’s face.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol concerning E and F;

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

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence), the selection of each fine for the crime;

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

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

4. The Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense counsel as to the assertion of the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that only the Defendant committed defensive acts, such as taking a arms or body or smuggling, in the process of setting up against the victims’ violence, and this constitutes a legitimate act. However, in light of the developments and means of the instant case acknowledged by each evidence, the relationship between the Defendant and the victims, and the circumstances at the time of the instant case, the victims unilaterally committed unlawful attack.

The above defense counsel's assertion is not accepted, since it cannot be deemed that the defendant exercised the tangible power only within the limit of passive defense as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from an unlawful attack and escape therefrom.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.