The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, around 13:40 on March 23, 2013, was in dispute with the victim D (19 years old, South) father of the victim D (19 years old, South) who moved the above place, and the damaged shocking net.

However, agely, the victim was able to take a bath in the middle and turn the head into the middle, but it did not turn into the middle.

Therefore, with the right hand, the victim assaulted the victim at one time at the left side of the victim's face.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s argument regarding Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the primary crime and the circumstances that may be considered in the course of committing the crime) of the suspended sentence, the Defendant asserts that his act constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense, since the Defendant merely puts his/her hand on the part of the Defendant’s chest with the Defendant’s chest.

In light of the records of this case, self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act is an act of considerable reason to defend the present unfair infringement against one’s own or another’s legal interest. In order to establish self-defense, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of infringement. The records of this case include only the victim’s head, and it cannot be said that the victim committed any infringement, and therefore, the defendant’s act cannot be said to be an act to defend the present unfair infringement.

(b).