beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, by a fine of 1,500,000 won.
Defendant
B The above fine.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On July 14, 2016, Defendant A around 21:50, at the entrance of the “D food store located at the 1st floor underground of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C, for the reason that the horses of the victim B (41 older) did not appear, Defendant A was deprived of the victim’s neck, and caused the victim to face with the victim’s right part of the upper part of the body of the victim’s right.
Accordingly, the defendant abused the victim and caused the victim to suffer bodily injury such as damage to the right hand part requiring treatment of more than six weeks.
2. Defendant B assaulted the victim on the same date, time, and place as described in paragraph 1 from the victim A (40) at the same time and place as described in paragraph 1, by having the victim take a bridge and go beyond the victim’s floor.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement made by the defendant A in the first trial record;
1. Entry of part of the defendant B in the first trial record;
1. Statement of witness E in the second public trial protocol;
1. Entry of each part of the witness A and B in the second trial records;
1. Statement made by the police for E;
1. A medical certificate;
1. Damage photographs [Defendant B's defense counsel's assertion of a political party or legitimate act, but in full view of the witness A's partial statement and witness E's police and each statement in court, Defendant B can recognize the fact that Defendant A committed a fighting with his mutual vision. In light of the process, method, etc. of the physical fighting in this case, Defendant A unilaterally committed an attack and Defendant B cannot be viewed as exercising the tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself from such attack and escape therefrom. In such a case, the exercise of tangible power occurring in the process of physical fighting constitutes an attack against the other party at the same time as an attack against the other party. Thus, Defendant B's act cannot be seen as a passive resistance, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense or legitimate act.