A A The defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,000, and a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

The defendants had been engaged in a emulious appraisal because they did not agree with each other due to the construction problem of crematoriums while working as a C regional development committee member in Jung-Eup for about three years.

1. On May 24, 2017, Defendant A found the victim B (74 tax) who was getting a bicycle before Kim Jong-si, around 12:30 on May 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) found the victim B (74 tax); and (b) stated that the victim “I am to have a kisp well to the kisp.” (a) caused the victim by one hand to kill the victim’s breath, and caused the victim’s injury to the breath or the breath, requiring treatment for up to 28 days on one hand.

2. When Defendant B was in line with the victim A (77 tax) at the same time and at the same place as in paragraph 1, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, resulting in the victim, such as the victim’s breathing of the bicycle carrying hand, breathing of the breath with the victim, breath of the breath of the part where the breath’s treatment is necessary, and the breath of the breath and the left-hand side of the breath of the part where the breath of the breath of the breath in need of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each written diagnosis of injury to the Defendants

1. Fire-proof reports (related to the verification of data on video recording outside CCTV);

1. Investigation report (related to verification of video-recording data in front of theE);

1. Each photograph;

1. Application of the CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes to the CD-related data using the CCTV in front of the incident (defendants);

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion

A. The exercise of tangible power by Defendant A is a legitimate defense against Defendant B by assaulting himself by a bicycle, and the omission by Defendant B is not due to Defendant A’s assault.

B. Defendant B is the defendant B.