Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim D(40 years old) were residents living in adjoining areas and have not been able to conduct mutual appraisal, such as punishing disputes over the use of a usual parking lot.

On January 14, 2014, at around 20:00, the victim was found in the defendant's house, and the defendant's wife E and parking problems were punished.

The Defendant returned home at around 21:00 on the same day, and she heard her friend her fly from his wife E, and she found to be the Defendant’s home in order to resist this, and she she she she she she she she she, she she she she she walked with his her first race, she she she she walked with his her gate, she she she she she she she she she, and she she she she she she she she she

Accordingly, the victim's words "I am so I am?" was defective, the defendant saw the victim's breath, batd the bat, catd the victim's bat and added 3-4 times to drinking.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, caused the victim to undergo approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. A statement of medical expenses and an injury medical certificate (D);

1. Results of inquiry into G hospitals;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant, etc. under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that since D only set up against the defendant to defend against the defect of an unspecified assault, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense.

According to the scam scrypary evidence, the defendant's act is a defense act, and at the same time, it cannot be viewed as self-defense under the Criminal Code. Therefore, the above argument is rejected.