A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

1. Defendant B, in collaboration with Defendant D on June 13, 2016, committed assault, such as assaulting the victim A (50 years of age) and the victim who was under his/her control from his/her work, on the ground that he/she sexual intercourses with the victim A (50 years of age) around 102-ro 102, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, about 21:20, around 102, Defendant B committed assault, such as walking the victim at a time as drinking once a drinking and walking the victim.

2. When Defendant A was assaulted at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph 1, as set forth in paragraph 1, Defendant A suffered bodily injury such as damage of an unclaimed baby on the number of days of treatment by taking the face of the victim D (36 tax) into drinking.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant B]

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant B;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against D or A (Defendant A);

1. Statement made by the defendant A in the first trial record;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing victim DNA photographs;

1. Defendant B of the pertinent provision of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of a penalty) against Defendant A: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of a penalty)

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: Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant A and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are asserted to the effect that the victim D committed the act as described in the judgment of the court below in order to protect himself since he had been aware of the face of the Defendant. However, in light of the circumstances, contents, circumstances, etc. of the instant crime acknowledged by evidence in the judgment, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate defense in light of the following:

The above argument is without merit.