Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim C are legal couple relations, and the defendant, around 23:45 on 01. 09. 01. 23:45 on 201. 03. 17. 1702 on the career problem of children, the husband of the victim C(45) and C(45) who are the husband of the child, and became a vision due to the difference in opinions in dialogue.

Accordingly, the victim's right part of the victim's right part, the Hadc and the chest part were assaulted to the victim's right part, the Hadc and the chest part of the victim, and the victim caused the victim's injury on the face part of the shoulder, the lac, the lac, the lac, and the lacing part of both arms that require approximately 2 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report, investigation report (including submission, etc. of a suspect C's written diagnosis of injury, removal from 26 in evidence records), investigation report (the statement, etc. of a police officer dispatched to the scene) and investigation report (the statement

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant and his defense counsel did not have the intent to injure the defendant, and the act of recording the facts constituting a legitimate defense.

However, if the Defendant, as indicated in the record and the changed theory, comprehensively takes into account the background and method leading up to the instant crime, and the degree of injury inflicted upon the victim C, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize that there was an intentional injury on the part of the Defendant, and furthermore, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as a passive defense to escape from an unreasonable invasion.

Since it is reasonable to see this as a legitimate defense, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense.

Therefore, all of the above arguments are not accepted.