The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

On January 17, 2014, at the D restaurant located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, with E and F, the Defendants expressed their dissatisfaction with the victims G(37 years of age) who used meals in the said restaurant and the victim H(42 years of age) at the request of the cafeteria to restrain the Defendants from leaving the restaurant with a large amount of drinking, and to deliver them to the cafeteria, the Defendants Hascam and first expressed their dissatisfaction with the victims Hascam “whether they may not leave the restaurant?” The victims Hascam on the part of the victims Hascam to prevent the victims from suffering injuries, and the victims Hascam and the victims Hascam to the victim’s face at the victim’s meeting, and Hascam to the victim’s face at the victim’s Hascam and the victim’s Hascam to the victim’s face at the victim’s Hascam.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each police interrogation protocol of G and H:

1. Application of each investigation report (Records Nos. 18 to 22, 104 to 114 pages) statute

1. The Defendants: Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment of crimes;

1. Defendants from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act; and

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

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