A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 2, 2013, at around 23:45, the Defendant, within the main point of “D” located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, for the reason that Defendant’s daily act was committed by the victim, was performed by the victim, and the Defendant was faced with the face of the victim E (the age of 21) who was the victim and walked with his face at a time of drinking and walked with his face, and F was when he was pushed with the chest of the victim G (the age of 22) and taken the face of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim G and the victim E in cooperation with F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, I, and F;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the second trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on the accused, G, E, H, and F;

1. Statement to the prosecution of I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of images of the upper part, such as suspect G, etc.);

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (such as the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim and the fact that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine), the defense counsel asserts that the crime of this case constitutes legitimate self-defense as an act to defend the defendant from the victim’s assault.

However, in light of the motive and background leading up to fighting, the process of fighting, the degree and result of the victims' injury, etc., which are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as stated in the judgment, the crime of this case has the nature of the defendant's act of attack against the victims, and thus cannot be seen as self-defense. Thus, the defense counsel's assertion is