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

On September 12, 2016, the Defendant, at around 11:00 on September 12, 2016, who purchased a lecture from the Defendant on the roads of the Dong-gu Daejeon C Borrowing, Dong-gu, Daejeon, D (28:C) where he was demanded to exchange or refund, and as he/she was demanded to do so, he/she saw the wall, which is a dangerous object in the chemical group, with his/her left hand, and used the victim's neck by cutting down his/her son.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness D's legal statement (the witness D's statement is specific and consistent from the investigative agency to the present court, and the relevant photographic injury part and degree are also consistent with the above statement);

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Relevant Article 261 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 261 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (elective of punishment);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant did not agree with the argument.

However, while the victim got scam due to the refund of the victim and his/her mouth, the victim scamed with his/her left hand and scamed as the scam of the defendant's head by using the scam in the flower, so he/she knicked his/her hand with his/her left hand from the defensive vehicle, and only knicked the part of the victim's scam with his/her hand.

Therefore, this constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

2. According to the evidence presented prior to the judgment, it is recognized that the defendant gets off the neck of D by cutting down the brick on the left hand with the left hand.

Even if family D flicks and tried to keep the defendant up to the flick, flicks and flicks and flicks and flicks and flicks and flicks and flicks, which constitute an act of attack at the same time as an act of attack, it cannot be viewed as a defense of a political party. The legitimacy of motive or purpose, means or method of attack is significant.