Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Victim C(33) and Victim D(n, 29 years old) are married with each other, and the defendant and victims are neighborings who reside in E studio in Gyeongsan-si.

At around 06:40 on October 05, 2017, the Defendant: (a) assaulted the chest of the victim C with the two hand on one occasion on the ground that it was satisfying to the port of the victim D due to one’s pet at the above studio parking lot; and (b) caused the victim C to be in excess of the floor, thereby causing the victim D who was later in need of medical treatment for a period of 15 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The defendant's judgment as to the defense of a political party or the assertion of a justifiable act under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act by the other party's act to defend the other party's assault. However, considering the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, the details of the crime of this case, the specific method by which the defendant inflicted assault or bodily injury on the victims, and the extent and degree of the injury, the defendant's decision has the nature of an attack beyond the minimum degree of defense that can be recognized as a legitimate defense, and it is not merely a passive defense act that does not violate the social rules.

As such, it cannot be seen that it constitutes a legitimate defense or a justifiable act.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.