Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 00:00 on December 15, 2013, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as the number of shares in the treatment days, the fluoral coordinate, the pathal of the pathalian, and the fluoral body, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s husband F (57 years of age) was found and came into his house, on the ground that the Defendant was found in his own residence of Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, 107 Dong 406 (E apartment).

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to damaged photographs and diagnostic certificates;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel held as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. The defendant first assaulted the defendant, and the defendant did so in the process of responding to this, and the defendant's act constitutes self-defense and thus the illegality of the defendant's act is dismissed.

In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, the complete level of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992; 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). In a case where it is reasonable to deem that the perpetrator’s act was committed with one another’s intent to attack rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was committed with the victim’s intent to attack, and thus, was committed against it, the act was concurrently characterized as a defensive act, and thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense.

Supreme Court Decision 200 March 28, 200