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

The defendant and the victim C are the workplace rent of (State)D.

On December 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 04:00, at the place of work of the (ju) D packing team in Chungcheong City E, 2012, flabed the victim’s assault against the victim’s assault; (b) flabed off the floor; (c) flabed the victim’s flab; and (d) flabed on the part of the head of drinking flab; and (d) flabed on the part of the

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocol of partial statement of the police against the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and F;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of injury (C) as to the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that "the defendant's act constitutes self-defense, since the defendant's act constitutes self-defense since he was committed against the victim's unilaterally by assaulting and threatening the victim C's breath and destroying balle to the floor, and selling the victim's side balle by drinking. However, there was no fact that the victim's inside part of the victim's inside part of the drinking, and the above act was committed against the victim's unilaterally by assaulting and threatening him at that time."

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed in the evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant and the victim were in the process of performing their duties, and were deemed to have damaged each other by destroying fats beyond the floor and drinking each other, ② the Defendant suffered injury requiring medical treatment for about three weeks due to the above dispute, ② the victim suffered injury requiring medical treatment for about two weeks, ③ the victim threatened the Defendant on the part of the victim, but the victim was in intimidation on the part of the victim, and further, it is not clear in the records that the victim committed the Defendant on the part of the victim, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate self-defense against a unilateral assault by the victim. Accordingly, the above argument is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;