The Defendants did not pay the above fine.

around 00:51 on December 3, 2016, at the entrance of the new supervision church, the Defendants: (a) 120 a.m. 120 p.m., at the entrance of the new supervision church; and (b) darbing the Defendant’s d (25 years old) on the road; and (c) darbling the Defendant’s d (25 years old), on the ground that the Defendant met, the Defendants used the darbing of each victim and darbing the dar, epibbing the dial of each victim; (b) darging the dar of the dar, ebbbbing the dar of the victim; (c) Defendant B was hick the victim’s face with his hand; (d) Defendant B daring the darbing the head and face so that the victim might not occur; and (d) assault the victim by breaking it with the wall.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants to the prosecution

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CCTV images for crime prevention, CDs, black stuffs video CDs;

1. Article 2(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. against Criminal Crimes, Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc., Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and each decision of fine [The above evidence reveals that, according to the above, Defendant A, who s/he takes a bath from the injured party, is the injured party and has a mutual vision, and the injured party s/he s/ she s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, applicable to the order of provisional payment;