Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 18:30 on August 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was dismissed from a new KBS building site in the area near the Donam-dong Do, Jeju-do, in Jeju-do; (b) was dismissed from a golf course that was working as a main room; (c) caused the victim D (40) who was the head of the golf course support team who was dissatisfied with the unemployment benefits problem; (d) caused the victim’s death; and (e) caused the victim’s buckbuck and head at one time, respectively.

Therefore, in order to carry the victim's scambling, the defendant saw the victim's chest, followed up the victim's clothes, side scams, etc., and sustained the victim's injuries, such as double scambling, etc., requiring treatment for about six weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A copy of each protocol of suspect examination of the police about D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of statutes to copies of each written diagnosis;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment: Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The provisional payment order: The defense counsel's assertion of defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense.

In order to establish self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method, and type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the kind and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense.

(1) The Defendant’s act constitutes a crime under the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s act and the degree of damage to the victim; and (b) the Defendant’s exercise of force against the victim even after having deducted the victim from the victim.