A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:25 on October 5, 2013, the Defendant and C jointly conflict with “E” restaurant located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim F (31 years of age) who is another customer, and the Si expenses. The Defendant C took the victim’s face once by drinking and walking once a part of the victim’s face by drinking, and the Defendant A took the victim’s face one time by walking the victim’s face over the floor, and the victim’s face is taken once by drinking, and the victim’s face cannot be identified.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to on-site visit reports, photographs of the suspect's injury part, and written diagnosis of injury;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 2 (1) of the same Act concerning the Selection of Punishment of Violences, etc. and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that the defendant's act constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act, since the defendant saw the victim to display his house toward the defendant, and the defendant expressed his house to the victim for his passive defense against the attack.

The following circumstances revealed by evidence, i.e., the victim made a statement that the defendant was driven by the defendant and C while escaping from the defendant's will after facing the face, etc., and the victim made a statement to the effect that the defendant's attachment at the time of display is not memory, and it seems that the defendant unilaterally made a statement to the effect that the defendant's attachment at the time of display is not memory, and that the defendant's friendship C appeared to have made a statement to the effect that he was unilaterally disadvantageous to the defendant. At the time of investigation by the police, there are considerable parts that the defendant's friendship C stated that the situation at the time of the crime was not memory.