Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and B (the age of 47) are married couple in a divorce lawsuit, and they are currently living separately, and C are the birth of the defendant and D.

B on July 1, 2019 21:00 Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Liwon-si

E. Finding the Defendant and D coming from the upper corner, and ringing up the Defendant’s face and left chests, etc., the Defendant’s face and left chests, etc., the Do d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d e on the back.

When the Defendant was assaulted from B as above, he saw B as drinking water, walked B’s right side of sublime, walked B’s right side of fright, and D gets off about 5 minutes by cutting off B’s title, and her drinking, etc. one time by drinking, and C sees B’s assaulting the Defendant, etc., and her flab with double hand, and her flab.

As a result, the defendant, together with D and C, brought about two weeks of medical treatment to B, such as the coordinate, the check, and the head of the post-inspection team.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Investigation report (in respect of submission of a written diagnosis of injury to a suspect B and photographs of the upper part of the body);

1. The investigation report(CCTV Confirmation) (limited to the CD reproduction ofCCTV image) (as shown in the facts charged in the judgment in the process of packaging with the Defendant, C, and D with B, the statements made in the investigation agency and this court, and the statements made in the investigation agency in C, as well as in the investigation agency in this court, are mutually identical and specific, and are also consistent with the contents of CCTV images and the written diagnosis of injury. As such, the Defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of joint injury.

In addition, the defendant's crime of this case also has the nature of both the act of defense and the act of attack, which constitutes an active act beyond the limit of passive act of defense, and therefore it cannot be viewed as self-defense.