A shall be punished by a fine of 50,000 won, and a fine of 300,000 won, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Defendant B: (a) around 09:30 on July 2, 2014, on the ground that the victim E (54 years of age, female) expressed her husband A’s desire to do so within the D apartment management office, Defendant B assaulted the victim’s her husband at his her son.

2. 피고인 A 피고인은 위 제1항과 같은 일시 및 장소에서 피해자 E(54세, 여)과 여수시 D아파트 관련 일에 대해 이야기하던 도중 피해자에게 “니까짓 년이 뭘 아냐.”라고 하는 등 욕을 하며 양손으로 어깨를 잡고 그 곳에 있던 소파로 밀치는 폭행을 하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Witness E;

1. A complaint filed by E;

1. Investigation report (F phone search for reference) and investigation report (G phone search for reference);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Determination of fines

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant B, at around 16:00 on March 1, 2014, committed assault against the victim E (54 years of age, female president) who was the former female president of the said apartment complex, among the meetings related to the re-election of female president at the Dog of a female apartment complex, in which the victim E (54 years of age, female president) tried to return the certificate of the female president to the victim of the defect that he/she would have failed to go at the meeting without the completion of the meeting, and in both hands, b0 minutes of 20 minutes of flaps.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected to be guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006, etc.).