1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 19, 2013, at around 23:00, the Defendant: (a) reported the appearance of the victim E (the age of 46) in a manner different from F, which is the owner of the above drinking house; (b) took the victim’s face one time at the hand; (c) took the victim’s neck in a hand; and (d) took the victim’s neck by taking the victim’s neck more than three to four times; and (e) took the victim’s inside part in drinking, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as salt, etc. requiring medical treatment for about 21 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (related to attachment of a medical certificate);

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted to the effect that he only saw the defendant by attacking him first and defending him.

However, the acts of attack and defense have been conducted through a series of acts of attack and defense, and at the same time, the acts of attack and defense have the nature of both areas, which are the acts of attack. Thus, even if they appear to be fighting, in fact one party unilaterally commits an attack and the other party has exercised force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack, barring special circumstances, such as where he/she unilaterally committed an attack, and the other party exercised force as a means of resistance to escape from such attack, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate act for defense or self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 2011). Accordingly, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, this part of the allegation is without merit, since the defendant is determined to have abused E as an attacker beyond the degree of passive defense.

The reason for sentencing.