1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of five hundred thousand won;

2. 50,000 won where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

On August 23, 2012, 06:45, the Defendant: (a) at the home of the Defendant at Changwon-si, Changwon-si, 117 dong 1315, the Defendant: (b) 117 dong 1315, the Defendant: (c) heard the voice of the victim D (the age of 54) coming out of the Republic of Korea and continued to be her husband; (d) followed the victim on the first floor.

After that, at the entrance of the entrance of the 117th floor entrance of the above apartment, the defendant scambling the scam scam scam scam scam of the victim's head by scaming the victim's head by scam, scambling the victim's head by scam, and opened the victim's scam scam so long as it can be applied to the hand scam.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim, such as an internal autopsy that requires medical treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A medical certificate (D);

1. Application of statutes related to standing photographs (D);

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

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

3. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant committed assault against the victim in the course of resistance against the unilateral violence of the victim, which constitutes legitimate act that constitutes legitimate self-defense or passive resistance, which does not contravene social rules.

2. The victim unilaterally committed an illegal attack in light of the developments and means of the instant case, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the circumstances at the time of the instant case.

The above defense counsel's assertion is without merit, since it cannot be deemed that the defendant exercised the force only to the extent 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.