A A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. On July 28, 2016, at around 05:55, the Defendant: (a) set the frontway in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., on the day, and was sitting at the steering place to move to a passenger car at that site; (b) on the ground that he was asked to “to change the rear seat and the seat” from the injured party B (the age of 61) and was taking a bath for the victim’s breath, and caused the victim’s injury on the flap and the tension that requires treatment for about ten (10) days.

2. At the time and place specified in paragraph (1)(1), Defendant B collected news reporting block, which had been placed around C, while making a trial cost with the victim A (the age of 51) and carried out an injury to the victim, such as an open room for treatment for about three weeks, by gathering news reporting block, which had been laid in around C, and was collected with the victim’s return.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

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

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act include the same criminal records against the Defendants. In particular, Defendant B committed a crime in the period of repeated crime because it was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with labor for the same kind of crime of interference with business, etc. and was released from the court, and the crime was committed during the period of repeated crime. The risk of the crime is very high, and the degree of injury cannot be deemed to be negligible. However, the Defendants agreed that the Defendants were the perpetrator and the victim, and the court agreed that they would be able to reflect on the crime in depth, and the relationship between the Defendants appears to be determined as ordered.