A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 5, 2015, at around 18:10, the Defendant injured the victim C (the age of 44) and the victim C while making a dispute with the head of the Sinpo-Eup, Mapo-si, Kimpo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, the Defendant sustained an injury, such as an internal flab on the left side of the victim, which requires treatment for about 42 days, by putting about once the snow on the left side of the dispute.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each photograph, injury diagnosis report, quotation, each investigation report, and diagnosis report;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act against the victim's assault.

In the case of fighting, the act of fighting has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). Thus, if the defendant's act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of defense, it does not satisfy the requirements of legitimate act, such as legitimacy of motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of means or method of the act, and supplement

(2) In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s assault, the Defendant and the victim revealed that the Defendant and the victim were committing an attack or set up a defense against each other. Thus, if there are circumstances, even if the Defendant and the victim protested against the attack and up against it, the harmful act is deemed to have the nature of the attack, which is the defense, at the same time.