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

1. On October 23, 2020, Defendant B suffered injury, such as the cage of a single cage at 19 days other than cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage c

2. While Defendant A had performed a trial on the date, time, place, victim B (the remaining, 52 years old) and public works, Defendant A was sprinked with the victim’s face on one occasion with his/her own floor, sponsed the victim’s body one time in his/her hand in his/her hand, and sponsed him/her with the victim’s left arms, and sponsed with the victim’s hand for about three weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the Defendants’ legal statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (Analysis of on-site CCTV data) to suspects B on top of the suspect B, a diagnostic report on injury A, and an investigation report (to analyze data on on-site CCTV images);

1. Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(2) of the Punishment Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(2) of the Criminal Act

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

1. Defendant B of the suspended execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of the punishment of a victim, etc.);

1. Defendant A: According to the evidence of the aforementioned determination as to the legitimate defense argument by the Defendant A and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the victim’s face at his/her hand once with the floor of the victim’s face, and the Defendant asserted that the victim’s body was sealed once in his/her hand, and that he/she inflicted an injury on the victim’s left part with approximately three weeks of medical treatment. As such, the Defendant’s act is not a defense but a separate attack, and thus, the legitimate defense assertion is without merit.