All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B did not look at the victim A.

B. Since the public prosecutor’s statements are consistent and the contents of the injury diagnosis statement correspond to the statements B, Defendant A may be recognized as having injured the victim’s statements at the time of Defendant B.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit, since it can be acknowledged that Defendant B used the bucks that caused violence against A’s bucks.

B. On April 13, 2011, Defendant A: (1) around 20:30 on the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern District Dhop on April 13, 201; (2) around 20:30, the victim B (ma, 45 years old) who was found to have been in the influence of alcohol and was able to take a view of the victim’s disturbance at his hand; and (3) on the part of the victim, the victim was able to take a knife the knife of the victim with the knife’s knife with the knife’s knife with the knife’s kb

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① On January 19, 2011, 201, the injured party B expressed a desire to throw away from the said head office “Woo to die in dunesk”; and the same year as the suspicion of interfering with the Defendant A’s duties.

6.10. The Seoul Northern District Court was sentenced to a fine of 500,000 won for the crime of interference with business, and the same year.

8.6. The same head of the same fump, “the same year, year, dead fump kumb,” and the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business at the same court on December 27 of the same year as the charge of obstructing the Defendant’s business.

② The victim B expressed that the Defendant A expressed that he was able to take care of himself, and that the Defendant A was able to get sacrife to the Defendant on the day of the commission of the crime, while the Defendant A was able to get sacrife.

③ Defendant A, while the injured party B was under the influence of ordinary alcohol, finds the disturbance and the disturbance at one’s own seat, on seven occasions at the police.