A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 9, 2013, at the entrance of the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City underground parking lot, the Defendant offered that the said car was prevented from entering the parking lot to the victim D, who was waiting for the car at the time, at the time of the entrance of the building C underground parking lot, and the said car became fit for the defendant's face by putting the head debt from the victim who was waiting for the car.

In response, the defendant, against this, sustained the victim's head debt collection, and sustained the victim's face in his hand, resulting in an injury to the victim, such as the diversity and diversity of the inner part requiring treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A medical certificate of injury (19 pages of investigation records) and a transcript;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

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

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

1. The assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. Inasmuch as the alleged defendant committed a passive resistance to escape from an attack against the victim, illegality is dismissed as it constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.

2. The judgment is based on the following: (a) an ordinary act of attack and defense was committed between the two fighting parties, and the act of attack and defense was committed simultaneously; and (b) the two areas of attack, the act of attack and defense, the act of attack and defense, at the same time; (c) barring special circumstances, such as where one party unilaterally committed an attack and the other party exercised tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack, barring special circumstances, such as where one party unilaterally committed an attack and the other party exercised such force as a means of resistance to escape from the attack, it cannot be deemed that only one party’s act constitutes a legitimate act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 2011). The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court is recognized.