The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

On September 1, 2016, at around 21:20, the Defendants changed part of the facts charged ex officio to the extent that it does not seem that the Defendants would incur substantial disadvantage to the Defendant A in light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, in light of the victim D (S) who passed around the crosswalk 123, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, Yan-ro 123, and the light of the victim D (SI 49) who was the victim D (SI) who was living in the vicinity of the crosswalk, and Defendant B was fluored by the Defendant B.

The defendant was pushed down with the victim's chest.

As such, the Defendants jointly assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (verification of black stay images, etc.);

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for negligence

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendants: Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of Defendant A and the defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are merely passive and defensive acts against the victim who attempted to attack Defendant B. However, considering the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the instant act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance of the legal interests, urgency, and supplement of the aforementioned evidence, the Defendants’ aforementioned act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004, etc.). The above assertion is rejected.