A A A shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won, a fine of 50,000 won, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 1,00,000 won.

1. Defendant B: (a) around 15:00 on March 4, 2017, the Defendant had no goods, such as the victim A (55 years old)’s mother who was hospitalized in the instant hospital, within the G hospital 3 sick units of G hospital located in F on March 4, 2017, and the victim A (5 years old) was hospitalized in the instant hospital

In large sounds, the victim entered the nurse's room, and the victim's left part of his left part is 1 blick with a drinking, and the victim's right part was flicked once, and the victim suffered bodily injury, such as a chest, flick, tension, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. Defendant A and Defendant C were divided into the date, time, place, Defendant C’s use of the victim’s assaulted by the victim’s assaulted by the victim’s B (36) and the victim’s body was attached to the victim’s body, and the victim’s body was tightly damaged, and Defendant C was divided into the victim’s name following the victim’s use of the name on his book.

The Defendants jointly inflicted injury on the victim, i.e., the instant e., the instant e., the instant e.g., the instant e., the instant e.g., the instant e., the instant e.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness B and the witness A;

1. CCTV-recording CDs;

1. Each injury diagnosis report and diagnosis report [Defendant B] asserted that even if the fact of assaulting A was recognized, it does not inflict any injury, and that it constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act and thus, illegality is denied. However, in light of the situation at the time of the case indicated in the aforementioned evidence and the attitude and act of the defendant, the defendant was not the intention of defending his or other person's unfair infringement.

Recognizing that such act does not constitute an act that does not contravene social norms, and it is recognized that A suffered an injury as stated in its reasoning as a defendant's act, and thus, the facts charged against Defendant B are guilty.

Defendant

A and Defendant C are acts performed for the purpose of setting up against Defendant A in the process of setting up against Defendant A, so their illegality is justified defense. However, it appears in the aforementioned evidence.