Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On June 4, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 08:00, the Defendant got the Defendant’s driver’s work on the street in front of the Heung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) 22 years old; (c) walked the victim E (29 years old); (d) her face, etc. of the victim E by walking the victim’s boat by drinking it; and (e) her body of the victim F (n, 27 years old) who continued to fighting, turned over the ground by pushing the victim’s her body on his hand.

As a result, the victim E puts the victim E with a multi-faceted scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopical scopics and scopic scopic scopic scopics, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Statement made by a witness F in the third protocol of the trial;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Each injury diagnosis report to A and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph description (suspect E-Damage);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that the defendant and defense counsel participated in fighting in order to prevent the victim E from assaulting D, but did not go against the victim E in the course of defending the unfair attack of the victim E. Thus, they constitute self-defense.

However, according to the evidence of the court below, it is recognized that the defect of the victim E about to catch the flabbage of D and walk the victim E's face, etc. by drinking, and the victim F, who continued to fight with two descendants, was damaged underground. Thus, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as an act of considerable importance to defend the defendant's unfair infringement, and rather, it can be viewed as self-defense because it is a defensive act against the victims at the same time.