B shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000 won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, 100,000 won.

Part of the facts charged shall be revised and supplemented without going through amendments to indictment to the extent that it seems that there is no concern about substantial disadvantage to the defendant's defense right.

Defendant

B around 00:40 on June 13, 2014, on the ground that at “G” located on the first floor of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building, the victim H (46 years of age) in the “G” continues to satis and satis alone, D satise the face of the victim by drinking, and Defendant B, who was next to it, satise the victim’s body by walking up to the floor.

Defendant B and D continued to attract the victim to the toilet of the said business establishment, and followed the victim’s head, body, etc. together with E.

As a result, Defendant B, in collaboration with D and E, inflicted injury on the victim, such as a non-alley 21-day therapy.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, I and J;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. A written statement of I and J;

1. A report on investigation (on-site conditions, details of locking, etc.);

1. Photographs of the suspect (D, B, and E);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (Evidence Nos. 35 of evidence list);

1. Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014); Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion of Defendant B and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The content of the assertion that Defendant B only fights against the victim when the victim was at the time of the victim, and there was no assault or injury to the victim in collaboration with D, etc.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed prior to the determination, Defendant B and E, together with Defendant B, shall be sufficiently recognized to have inflicted the injury on the victim, and contrary thereto, K, E, and D’s respective legal statements.