Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2014. 4. 14. 15:40경 상주시 C에 있는 D 식당에서 피해자 E(54세)와 말싸움을 하다가 화가 나 피해자의 왼쪽 눈을 1회 때리고 머리로 피해자의 얼굴 쪽으로 박치기를 한 뒤, 서로 멱살을 잡은 상태로 피해자를 바닥으로 넘어뜨려 같이 뒹구는 등으로 피해자에게 약 2주간의 치료가 필요한 경부의 전종의 염좌상 등을 가하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The legal statement of the witness F (the statement that the defendant and the victim have slicked with each other and that it is combined with each other);

1. Statement of statement made to F by the police officer (a statement that the accused spawns with the injured party and spawn with the accused, and that he spawn with each other);

1. A report on internal investigation (e.g., details of dispatch to the scene);

1. The application of the injury diagnosis document attached to the police interrogation protocol of E [the defendant and his defense counsel denied the injury, but according to the evidence above, it can be acknowledged that the defendant inflicted injury as stated in the victim's facts constituting the crime].

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. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant is merely the victim's self-defense or legitimate act because he or she met himself or herself by setting up against the victim's assault.

2. According to the above evidence, although the defendant was assaulted by the victim, it is reasonable to view that the defendant did not only act to defend the victim's unfair infringement but also act as stated in the victim's criminal facts with the intent of mutual attack. It is difficult to view that the defendant was within the scope of passive resistance. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

Accordingly, the defendant and the defendant.