Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

On May 10, 2017, A assaulted the victim, such as the victim B (n, 42 years of age) and the parking problem in front of the vice head of public permanent residence in Seoyang-gu C Village 1, Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul on May 10, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Application of the Act on the Legal Statement of Witness B

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the order of provisional payment are as follows: (a) consideration of all elements of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the background leading up to the assault against the victim B; (b) degree of the assault; (c) circumstances after the assault; and (d) the age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, and criminal records of the said defendant; and (d)

Part of Innocence (Defendant B)

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged was assaulted by Defendant B, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged as indicated in the judgment, the victim A (n, 38 years of age) and the scambling of the victim by hand.

2. A legitimate act for the defense of a party by removing only one of the acts of a party, inasmuch as the act of attack and defense was conducted annually between the persons who conduct a fighting match and the act of defense was in the nature of a quantity that is the act of attack;

It is common that it is difficult to regard it as a party's defense.

However, even if they appear to be fighting one another, in fact, if one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable that such act is permissible in light of social norms and its illegality is eliminated (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).