The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

1. On June 1, 2013, the Defendant, while driving F vehicles in the E shooting distance located in D around 11:10 on June 1, 2013, Defendant B brought a dispute with the victim on the ground that G vehicles operated by the victim A (the age of 63) interfered with the Defendant’s operation. Defendant B, in his hand, was sprinked with the victim for approximately 14 days by sprinking the ebbbbbing part of the victim, thereby engaging in sprinking the victim for approximately 14 days.

2. Defendant A, at the above date and place, did a dispute with the victim B (the age of 43) for the said reasons, and assaulted the victim by booming the victim’s breath by breath.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. A report on internal investigation (not less than two pages of investigation records) and each investigation report (not less than one thousand four pages, two pages, and forty-nine pages of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Articles 257(1)(B) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1)(a)(a) of the Criminal Act, and each of the fines (a) appears to have first expressed a desire to Defendant A who has more than 20 years of age than Defendant B, Defendant A appears to have exercised physical power first to Defendant B, and each of the criminal records of the Defendants are reflected in sentencing)

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;