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 17:00 on August 8, 2015, the Defendant filed a complaint with the victim E (Nam, 39 years of age) who was found to know that the Defendant she she she gets a large voice from D points operated by C at Jeju on the ground that the Defendant she she she gets a large voice, she gets out of the body of the victim, she brought the body of the victim by double arms, she moved the victim back to the floor, and she laid down the victim back on the floor.

As a result, the Defendant brought the victim with the shoulder and the elbow in the string of the shoulder that requires two weeks of treatment, the elbow in the string of the arms, the damage of the elbow of the arms in detail, the damage of the selbow of the arms in detail, and the damage of the selbring

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment: Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Provisional payment order: The self-defense stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, which is to judge the defendant's assertion of self-defense under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, is to defend the current infringement of his/her or another person's legal interest, and there is a considerable reason. In order to establish self-defense, defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, method of infringement, the kind and degree of legal interest infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794 Decided April 26, 2007). The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was self-defense because the victim’s act did not go through the owner of the building or the police but did not go through the owner of the building or the police and did not go against the victim. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since the Defendant’s act is deemed to have no social reasonableness as a defense act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.