A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On September 22, 2012, at around 21:20, the Defendant: (a) had been working in front of the Heungdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council of Heungdong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and (b) had been driving in front of the Heungdong-gu, Chungcheongnamdong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and (c) had kneeed, the Defendant: (a) had the victim go in front of the Heungdong-dong, and had the victim walked; (b) had knee and walked the victim’s side flaps; (c) had the victim walked the victim’s side flaps; and (d) had C prevented the victim from leaving the victim’s left flaps.

As a result, the defendant, in collaboration with C, inflicted injury on the victim, such as cage cages that require approximately four weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the written diagnosis of injury to the E submission;

1. Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that even if the defendant's judgment as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel did not put a fighting match with the victim and suffered an injury in the process, this constitutes a passive resistance, which does not violate the social rules, and thus constitutes a justifiable act. However, according to each evidence of the judgment below, it is acknowledged that the defendant was in the process of causing the victim's injury or loss with C along with the victim, and that the above injury was sustained by the victim during the process of causing the victim's injury or loss. According to the above facts acknowledged, according to the above facts, the defendant's crime cannot be seen as reasonable act, since it does not seem that there

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6243, Dec. 24, 2009). The reason for sentencing is that the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant, and made oral agreements from the police investigation process, and the intention of the injury of the defendant was weak.