Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 7, 2015, at the F cafeteria located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 13:45, Defendant A, while drinking alcohol with the victim B (46 years), and the victim told himself/herself to do his/her refusal to do his/her own, Defendant A laid off the victim’s head head, who was seated with a dangerous object, on one occasion due to his/her refusal to do so, and caused the victim’s injury, such as two heats, where the number of days of treatment cannot be known to the victim, by taking the face of the victim.

2. Defendant B, at the time, and at the same place as indicated in paragraph (1), was assaulted by the victim A (48 taxes) on the same ground, and the victim’s fluor was fluored to fluor, and the victim’s left side part and back part of the fluor, and the victim’s fluor was able to know the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment No. 1]

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the suspect B of the police;

1. On-site photographs and damaged photographs (the facts of judgment No. 2);

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. A legal statement of a witness;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police officer;

1. On-site photographs and photographs of damage [the defendant and defense counsel], the crime of this case does not constitute a crime because it is justified defense as a legitimate defense.

The argument is asserted.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence are that the victim had suffered from the victim's unsatisfying after leaving the victim only when the victim had already satisfyed the defendant.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant made a statement, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense, since it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act was an active anti-influence beyond the passive limit of defense against the victim’s unreasonable attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a legitimate defense.

We cannot accept the above argument.

Application of Statutes

1...