2014 Bodily1538 Bodily Injury

1. A (78 years, inn), a section, or a section;

2. B (76 years, inn), Section B

lower court (prosecutions) and Kim Customs (Trial)

Attorney Oral-type (Korean Bar Association for Defendant A)

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon (for Defendant B)

April 2, 2015

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won, and a fine of 300,000 won, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants were converted into 100,000 won for the period of one day.

shall be confined in a workhouse.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A

On October 24, 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 19:20, at the ○○ Store located in Ulsandong-gu, the victim B (n, 36 years old); (b) “I see how I son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son,” and “I son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son me son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son.

2. Defendant B

The Defendant, at the same time, at the same time, and at the same place as “paragraph 1 of the above, was assaulted by the victim A (n, 35 years of age), and caused the victim’s hair and scambling, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as scam and tensions that require approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. B and each police statement made to A;

1. A written diagnosis for each injury;

1. The results of the CD reproduction;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act; Fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant B and Defense Counsel’s argument

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the illegality should be avoided because they are the self-defense resistance against the defendant's attack. However, according to the timely evidence, the defendant's defense cannot be recognized as the grounds for excluding illegality, such as self-defense. Therefore, the above argument is rejected.

Judges Kim Byung-hee