The defendant is not guilty. The summary of this judgment shall be announced publicly.

1. The Defendant is prepared for employment C, and D is working at C House Repair Business Bureau.

On June 3, 2014, at around 18:50, the Defendant, while drunk in front of the Fmaart in Asan City E, was in a dispute with the victim D and his workplace due to the influence of alcohol, was faced once with the head of the victim, and the victim's face was 4-5 with the victim's body.

As a result, the defendant injured the victim of a 14-day medical treatment, such as multi-dives and multi-divesives of unknown details.

2. Determination

A. The grounds for the Defendant to the effect that the head of D reaches knife one time is the only statement of D, and it is difficult to believe D’s statement in light of the situation at the time and the parts and forms of the wife, as well as the detailed statement of D.

B. Meanwhile, in a case where one party unilaterally makes an illegal attack and the other party uses a tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, unless it is deemed that such act is a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable that it is permissible under the social concept and its illegality is eliminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). According to the records, D, a witness of the other party, who is on the top of the other party, made a very serious request for the “defasst” of the other party, and reported to 112, and the defendant was able to drink the other party under the bottom of D to escape from such unilateral attack, and at the time of such fact-finding, the defendant protected himself/herself from an unlawful attack and exercised it as a type of resistance.