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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On June 4, 2019, the Defendant, at around 20:40, was assaulted by the victim C (56 tax) in front of the Southern-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, and the victim C (56 tax), caused the victim to be in front of the road by walking the victim’s spath, pushing the victim’s spath, pushing the bridge, cutting the victim’s spath, cutting the spath, cutting the spath, cutting the victim’s spath, cutting the victim’s spath, cutting the victim’s spath, cutting the victim’s spath, and cutting the victim’s spath, which require treatment for a period of seven days.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against C or D;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Video CDs;

1. Spanish photographs of assault and cinematographic images;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 262, 260 (1), and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime (opportune)

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the illegality is excluded as an act that does not go against the legitimate defense or social rules, since the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act committed an act to protect the victim's unjust attack.

In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was at the first place with the intent of attacking one another rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against it, the perpetrator’s act of attack is at the same time an act of attack, and has the nature of an act of attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate defense or excessive defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200). It cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not contravene social rules.

According to the evidence of each judgment, the defendant's act in this case is judged first to be an act of attacking against the victim, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a political party's act that does not go against the defense of the party or social norms.