Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 14, 2020, the Defendant: (a) driven the victim D ( South Korea, 42 years old) in front of the C convalescent Hospital in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, and (b) driven the E-child car from the shooting distance room in the new north-gu, and (c) caused the Defendant to go back to the area of the earth, and (d) caused the Defendant to go back to the area of the earth, on the ground that the Defendant intending to cross the road without permission, the Defendant committed assault, such as the victim’s flabing of flab and flabing the flab, with a hand-to-kick, etc.

Summary of Evidence

Part of the statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Application of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes related to D's photographics of damaged parts of the written statement of suspect interrogation protocol against D, and suspect D's photographics;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act, in the course of making a dispute with the victim at the time and time and place indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, where the injured party had flabed the fransh of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s awareness was left in the process. The Defendant’s act was flabed by flabing the victim’s flab and flab on the Defendant’s hand saw the victim’s flab, and flabing the victim’s arms to the Defendant’s hand blab.

In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was carried out with one another’s intention of attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against one another’s attack, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense, since it is at the same time an act of attack, which is a defensive act, and has the nature of an act of attack (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant and the victim were in conflict with each other as stated in the facts constituting a crime.