Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 01:00 on November 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) suffered injury to the Defendant, i.e., a franchisor and franchisor, etc., where the victim E, who had been satisfed in the next part of the Plaintiff, was “the franchisoring of a dam and franchisoring money”; (b) caused the victim’s franchisor and flachisoring the franchisor and flachisor, etc., requiring approximately two weeks of treatment.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the accused and E;

1. Application of each medical certificate, damage photographing statute;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that E did not have the intent to inflict injury on the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense to defend the Defendant’s body, according to each of the above evidence, as the Defendant and E did not see the Defendant’s “Fraud” at the time of the instant case, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant and E did sculpt and sculpted with each other, and that the Defendant’s wife occurred. According to the above facts of recognition, according to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had the intent to inflict injury on E, and that the Defendant’s act does not constitute self-defense. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.