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 May 12, 2020, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of alcohol in front of the Incheon Jung-gu, Incheon; (b) was a victim’s walk and vision; (c) was drinking twice the victim’s face; (d) was bleeped twice the victim’s D’s neck; and (e) committed assault to the victims by walking the victim’s e.g., walking the victim’s walk.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph damaged parts of the statement in the police interrogation protocol against some of the accused in relation to D, C, or E concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the police;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

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

1. The summary of the argument recognizes the fact that the defendant has exercised some tangible power against the victims, but the defendant's act was done in the course of unilateral assault from many victims, and its illegality is dismissed as it constitutes a legitimate defense.

2. Determination

A. Legal doctrine 1) In a case where it is reasonable to view that a perpetrator’s act was committed first with his intent of attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against it, it cannot be viewed as a party’s defense or excessive defense, since it has the nature of an attack at the same time as the defensive act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). Meanwhile, between persons who conduct attack and attack, the attack and defense act are continuously cross-sectioned and the two areas of attack and defense act are the same as the two areas of attack at the same time. Thus, only one party’s act is called a justifiable act for defending the victim.

It is difficult to regard it as a party defense or as a party defense.