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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On February 3, 2020, the Defendant, at around 11:00 on February 3, 2020, filed a dispute for the reason that the victim C (mae and 73 years of age) and the Defendant transferred the victim’s shoulder and Do and the victim, which are the seat of the victim, and was faced with the victim’s face by kne and knee.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as gympium, gympium, and gympium around 2 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant in this court;

1. Entry of C's written complaint;

1. Application of the laws and regulations governing investigation reports (on-site ctv perusal) in the statement of the police statement protocol to C;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant's assertion and judgment under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are asserted as constituting a legitimate defense or excessive defense inasmuch as the defendant committed an act identical to the facts charged in this case to defend the victim in the situation of an attack that the victim gets ebbbbbbat first.

In order to fall under the defense of a political party or excessive defense, it is recognized that an act by the defense doctor is an act by the victim. In a case where, rather than to defend the victim's unfair attack, the perpetrator's act was committed with the intent of attacking one another, and it is reasonable to deem that the perpetrator's act was committed with the intent of attacking the victim's unfair attack, and became an attack, that act has the nature of an attack at the same time, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an act of attacking a political party or excessive defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1307, Jan. 28, 2010). However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant was engaged in an attack with the victim and received a different attack from the victim.