In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

While Defendants were in the border relationship in 2013, they were pregnant through Defendant A’s sexual intercourse with Defendant B, and they were born with the fetus.

1. On July 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed abortion surgery with D mountain fathers in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu, and the third floor; (b) requested mountain fathers and medical practitioners D to perform abortion surgery; and (c) caused D to perform abortion surgery to discharge a fetus in a pregnant five weeks’ state of pregnancy out of his body through a method of injecting advanced pressure pressure.

2. Defendant B requested A to perform abortion at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, along with A, and aided A’s abortion by facilitating the crime by preparing a written consent for surgery as a guardian.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. D Legal statements;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each medical records;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 269(1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Articles 269(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

1. Defendant B who is eligible for mitigation: Article 32(2) and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act;

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: The crimes committed by those who violate the Criminal Act that prohibits abortion in order to protect the life of the fetus on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be mitigated.

subsection (b) of this section.

However, regarding criminal punishment of abortion, social consensus has been sufficiently reached, such as receiving considerable support for unconstitutionality claims.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the exercise of the state's penal authority has been prevented because it is extremely limited to cases where the actual investigation is conducted or a trial is conducted even though the abortion has been spread.

All the Defendants are against themselves when committing a crime, and Defendant A is against themselves.