A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. On October 16, 2013, around 10:20, Defendant A suffered injury, such as the complete escape of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the body that needs to be treated for about 6 weeks on the left hand of the victim, who was dissatisfied with the issue of removing the entrance of the warehouse jointly used by the victim. While the victim was trying to cover the victim with the upper part of the body of the victim’s upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the body of the body of the victim’s upper part of the body of the body of the victim’s upper part of the body of the victim’s upper part of the body of the victim’s upper part of the body of the victim’s upper part of the body of the victim’s upper part of the body of the victim.

2. Defendant B, at the time, at the time, at the place specified in the above paragraph (1), set up against the assault by the said victim A (the age of 39), asked the victim’s right side part of the right part of the victim to ask the victim for approximately 10 days of medical treatment, thereby resulting in the victim’s injury to the property of the following arms, or the injury of the property of the following arms, or the injury of

Summary of Evidence

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse;

1. Defendant B’s defense counsel’s assertion regarding Defendant B’s defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the crime of injury in this case asserted that the crime of injury in this case is an emergency evacuation or self-defense, and thus does not constitute a crime. However, since it is difficult to see that the act satisfies the requirements of reasonableness in the method or means, it cannot be deemed as a self-defense or an emergency evacuation, the above assertion is rejected.