A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 5,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

1. On March 15, 2018, around 07:25, Defendant A suffered injury on the road of the “Dvalescent Hospital” located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, by assaulting the victim, such as breathing the victim’s breath in hand, and breathing the victim’s breath on the bus in front of the “Dvalescent hospital”, on the ground that the Defendant sick-in vehicle operated by the Defendant fell in front of the bus operated by the victim B in front of the bus operated by the victim B.

2. Defendant B, on the same grounds as described in paragraph (1) at the same time and place as described in paragraph (1), committed assault by the victim A and Si expenses, such as breathing the victim’s breath by hand and destroying the victim’s breath.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Documents submitted by the complainants and videos;

1. A report on investigation (verification of black stuffs) and a photograph of cutting a black stuff image (Defendant B);

1. A’s legal statement;

1. A suspect interrogation protocol of the police officer;

1. Documents submitted by the complainants and videos;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (verification of black stuffs) and photographic images by cutting a black stuff image;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent legal provisions pertaining to criminal facts: Articles 262, 260 (1), and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant B who selects a fine: Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act; and the choice of a fine;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants of the Provisional Payment Order: the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted the defense of Defendant B’s self-defense under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the victim’s defense constituted self-defense merely because the victim’s frightened and pushed away the Defendant’s breath to return to the city bus he operated as soon as possible.

In light of the foregoing, the background, method, process, and crime of the instant crime recognized by the aforementioned evidence.