The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a public official C who has worked in the E Elementary School administrative office located in Busan District D.

On July 8, 2013, at around 16:10, the Defendant, within the above E Elementary School Administrative Office (hereinafter “E”) around July 16:10, 2013, opened the budget files requested by the Victim F (the age of 46) as soon as possible, was assaulted by the Victim, against which the Victim’s face was set up, against which the Defendant would be able to take the victim’s face, and as a result, left side buckbucks of the Victim.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in the cryp of cryp that requires two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each police statement to G, H, I, and J;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged parts, administrative office, etc.;

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

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (the daily calculation amount: 100,000 won);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (the defendant is the first offender, the degree of injury of the victim is not severe, the victim's first use of violence, etc.) of the Criminal Code (the motive and circumstance of the crime of this case) and defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and defense counsel have been passively defensive during the course of assaulting from the victim, and that this constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact of assaulting the victim as stated in the judgment as the victim's intent to attack against the victim first obtained from the victim, and it is difficult to view it as a legitimate act. Thus, we cannot accept the above assertion