The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

Around 16:00 on February 4, 2014, the Defendant laid off the pipe installed by the Defendant’s employee at the construction site of the Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, and the victim C (the 52-year-year-old-old-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-gu-si-gu-gu-gu-gu

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes stated in a written diagnosis;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. The Defendant asserts that Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the agreement with the victim that the victim does not want punishment, the process leading to the crime, etc.) of the suspended sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Do1488, Apr. 2, 2006) of the suspended sentence (the agreement with the victim) and its judgment on this issue are that the Defendant’s act constituted self-

In light of the above evidence, the defendant's act is beyond the victim's body and can be recognized as the fact that the victim's head was crypized once in a health format. Thus, the defendant's act is beyond the reasonableness of the act of self-defense, and it cannot be viewed as self-defense. Thus, the defendant's argument is rejected.