The punishment against the Defendants shall be eight months by imprisonment.

However, as to Defendant B from the day this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Records] Defendant A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Injury) at the Seoul Northern District Court on April 23, 2015 and completed the execution of the sentence on February 20, 2017.

[Criminal facts]

1. On March 13, 2018, Defendant A around 22:00, at D main points located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim B(58 tax) and bathing problems were to be taken into account, and the victim’s head part was 1 time, and the victim’s face was taken one time due to drinking, and the victim’s face was taken one time, and the victim’s face cannot be identified.

2. The Defendant B, on the same date, at the same time, and at the same place as that of paragraph (1), moved back to the victim A (57 years of age) and her chest as soon as possible by asking her ear and her chest, thereby causing the victim’s loss to the left side where the number of days of treatment cannot be known.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of Defendant A and Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Investigation report (record a statement by telephone);

1. A copy of medical records and a medical certificate;

1. Photographss of damaged the wife and property of the person under consideration B, photograph of the suspect B, and photograph of the suspect A;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: A written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (prior convictions A), text of judgment, etc. (Defendant A and his/her defense counsel), and the fact that the victimized person, while having been in a dispute with the injured person B, asked the injured person to remove him/her, and did not use violence against the injured person as described in the facts charged, and even if the injured person suffered two heats in the process of fighting the body with the accused person;

It argues to the purport that it constitutes a legitimate defense or excessive defense, as it is derived from the defense act to escape from an unreasonable attack of the victim who is unrefilled so far.

However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, in particular, the background leading up to the occurrence of vision between the defendant and the victim, and the dialogue and the bath theory between the defendant and the victim.