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

At around 01:45 on June 14, 2014, the Defendant assaulted the victim by drinking alcohol, such as the victim F, on the ground that the Defendant “E” was aware of the shape of the Defendant’s breath, and assaulted against the Defendant on the ground that “this fat has been fatched, the fatch fat,” and the batling of the Defendant’s bat, the victim’s fat, and the victim’s fating of the batth of the Defendant’s fat, and the victim’s fatth of the victim’s fatth of drinking.

As a result, the defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as multi-faceted scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scop

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (F);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

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

1. The alleged defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim, and even if the defendant had exercised his/her force to force the victim to use his/her force, it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the judgment, the fact that the Defendant, before being subject to the assault from G, inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the victim’s body fighting as described in the facts charged in the instant case, and that the Defendant scambling the victim with the scambling that the Defendant scambling the Defendant, thereby harming the Defendant, and that G was committing an assault against the Defendant.

In light of the circumstances, means, etc. of the instant crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act that does not go against self-defense or social norms, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.