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

On October 20, 2014, at around 17:10 on October 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) caused the Defendant’s mother and mother living in the south-gu port C having been living in the vicinity of the residence of the victim D, and caused the Defendant’s injury, such as light gambling, inspection, and sprinking of the victim, which require two-day medical treatment to the victim; (b) caused the Defendant to go against the victim and the victim, who met the victim’s spatf; (c) spatfing the spatf; (d) spatfing the spat; (e) spatfing the spat; (e) spatfing the spat; and (e) spatfing the spatf.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. Photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

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

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not assault the victim, but did not unilaterally commit an assault, and only spawn the victim’s grandchildren, and thus, constitutes a legitimate defense.

2. Where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of attacked with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against one another, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense because it has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the defensive act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200). In light of all the circumstances indicated in the records of the instant case, such as the motive and circumstance leading up to fighting between the defendant and the victim, degree of both assaults, and circumstances before and after fighting, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act has the character of an attack as an active attack beyond the passive limit of defense, and thus, it has the nature of an attack.