The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

On February 28, 2015, at around 11:56, the Defendant assaulted the Victim E (the 38 years of age) at the kitchen room of the restaurant among the second floor of Mapo-gu Seoul building C, on the ground that the Defendant did not listen to his horse, by hand, by putting the Defendant’s fat, fating the fat, sticking the Defendant’s bat, sticking the Defendant’s bat, pushing the Defendant’s bat, fating the Defendant’s bat, and turning the fat

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning CCTV afforestation;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (including the minor degree of assault, the fact that the victim seems to have been assaulted mainly by the victim, and the first offender, etc.), the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that this constitutes self-defense merely because the Defendant was subject to the assault, such as flabing the breath of the victim, and thus resisting the victim’s clothes to resist.

In light of the following facts: (a) according to the witness F’s legal statement and CCTV video recording, the Defendant appears to have hallwayed from the restaurant as indicated in the judgment with the victim; (b) the Defendant also stated at an investigative agency that the victim had kiddddd a bridged with the breath of the victim; and (c) other developments and processes of the assault in the judgment, etc., the Defendant’s act in the judgment is not merely a passive defense against the victim’s unfair attack; and (d) it is reasonable to view that the act in the judgment of the Defendant was not a passive defense against the victim’s wrongful attack, and thus, it cannot be seen as self-defense. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.