The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Attached Form

As stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. C’s statement;

1. A survey report (CCTV verification);

1. Application of CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. Determination as to the defense of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of legitimate act under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code (the defendant's counter-performance of the crime, the victim's motive and circumstance leading to the crime, such as inducing the crime first, etc.) (the degree of damage to the victim appears to be not much significant, and the defendant's age, character, character, occupation and environment, method and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments in this case) of the suspended sentence

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that when the victim was forced to attack from the victim at the time of the instant case, the defendant committed an assault against the victim as stated in the facts charged while setting up against the victim to defend it, and that this constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the victim's self-defense against an unfair harmful act or social norms.

2. On the grounds delineated below, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not acceptable on the grounds that it is without merit. In a case where it is reasonable to deem that an offender’s act was committed with the intent of an attack, rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and the act was committed against it, the act has the nature of the act of attack as well as the act of attack, and thus, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004). The evidence presented in its holding.