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

At around 00:30 on 11, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the victim E on the street in front of the “Dcafeteria” located in Mai-si, Gi-si, Gi-si, on the ground that the victim E had her female her female flick under his/her flick, in his/her hand, at one time his/her left face face.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in which part of the police statement statement with respect to E is written;

1. Article 260 of the Criminal Act and Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the above assault by the defendant constitutes self-defense as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

To recognize an act as self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act must be reasonable to defend against the present infringement of his/her or another person’s legal interest. Whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of defense, the method of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3606 delivered on November 13, 2003, etc.). According to the witness F’s legal statement in this case, according to the victim E at the time of the instant case, the victim E was under the influence of alcohol, and the F was merely the side of F, and the part of F was dried, and the F was dried, and the F was dried. However, in light of the degree of infringement and the situation at the time of the instant infringement, the Defendant’s act of blocking or defending the victim’s face goes beyond the bounds of reasonableness.

Therefore, the defendant's assault of this case cannot be viewed as self-defense.