A shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won, and by a fine of 700,000 won, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Defendant

On September 18, 2014, A (n, 63 years of age) sought a loan repayment from Defendant B (n, 55 years of age) on September 18, 2014 to the F cafeteria located in Seo-gu, Daejeon.

1. Defendant A around 14:00 on September 18, 2014, around 14:00, at the street of the “F cafeteria”, Defendant A sent back the victim B one time by his hand.

2. Defendant B around 14:00 on September 18, 2014, around 14:20, around 2014, indicated that Defendant B displayed a test color room with the strawer being shouldered in front of the “F cafeteria,” the victim’s face and head four times, divided the victim’s head head by one hand, and divided the victim’s head head into two parts requiring approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. Legal statement of the witness B [Defendant B]

1. Each legal statement of witness A, G and H;

1. Application of an injury diagnosis certificate and statutes governing damaged photographs;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) (Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act: Defendant B: Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine);

1. Defendants to be detained 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 (Defendant A)

1. The summary of the facts charged was around 14:00 on September 18, 2014, Defendant A suffered injury to the victim B, such as cloudal dye, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment by putting the victim’s hand in his/her hands, in front of the “F cafeteria” located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

2. Determination

A. The evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case lies in the witness B’s legal statement, the investigative agency’s statement, G preparation statement, the diagnosis statement, and the damaged photograph.

1 B stated in this Court as follows:

Defendant

A was put up with his own, etc., and was not subject to the principle of mutatis mutandis taxation. A did not think that it was filed.