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 April 5, 2014, around 07:40, the Defendant: (a) around the National Bank located in the Busan-gu Welfare-ro 2 (Gain-dong) of Busan-gu, and (b) was satisfing the victim C (32 years of age) and the victim’s flab, and was satfing and satfing the victim’s flab while flabing the flab, and had approximately two weeks of flabing the face and head of the flab.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Investigation report (as to attachment of an injury diagnosis report) and an injury diagnosis report attached thereto;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports and photographs of the upper part of the body;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the act recorded in the facts of crime in the judgment constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act as an act to defend the attack against C, as an act to protect the attack against C, under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, it is difficult to view that the act of attack and defense was conducted throughout the past, and the act of attack and defense was simultaneously conducted between the persons who conduct the same fighting, and that the act of attack is a self-defense for the purpose of defense or that it constitutes a legitimate act because only one of the parties' acts was committed simultaneously.

According to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant and the victim met each other, and it can be recognized that they inflicted bodily injury on the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act since it goes beyond a simple defense and has the nature of an attack against the victim.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.