A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 17, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny, etc. at the Busan District Court on July 17, 2015, and the execution of the sentence was completed in the Busan Correctional Institution on August 27, 2016.

On November 17, 2018, at the 2016:24, the Defendant collected each item (70cm, 70cm in length, 70cm in thickness, 77cm in thickness) from the floor where the victim D (37 years of age) was unable to properly use the storage boxes for the Defendant, and the Defendant collected the parts of the victim’s head on one occasion.

As a result, the Defendant carried dangerous articles and carried the body of the body part of the body part in which the number of days of treatment can not be known to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the witness D;

1. On the spot and photographs of victims immediately after crimes;

1. Records of judgment: Application of criminal history records, investigation reports (a copy of judgment on repeated crime by a suspect, etc.) and statutes;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation

1. The alleged victim committed the crime of this case by misunderstanding that the defendant would inflict harm on the life and body of the defendant by citing the victim's own discretion and approaching the defendant, which constitutes an erroneous defense.

2. To recognize a certain act as a legitimate defense, it must be reasonable to protect the present infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest, and there should be circumstances to believe that there is an imminent and unfair infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest in order to constitute an erroneous defense, and there should be justifiable grounds for such misunderstanding.

In addition, the actor believed that there is such a situation of infringement and tried to defend it.