On December 21, 2012, at around 12:40 on December 21, 2012, the Defendants, as the same company fees, had to attach a vision between Defendant D and the victim on the ground that the deposit for the lease of the studio leased by Defendant A was not returned to the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendants were jointly involved, and Defendant A was a simple doubt in Freal estate.

As the victim was laid, and threatened, the defendant B was indicted by putting the clothes of the victim and putting breath, such as flaps, but is recognized only as a civil fact.

Victim assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statement (a statement to the effect that Defendant B took clothes of Defendant E, and Defendant A left the chair next to it)

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Part concerning the statement of E in the police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to E;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. and Punishment of Specific Crimes, Article 2 (1) 1 of the same Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. 20,000 won for each fine to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the said Act;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1448, Apr. 2, 2009) asserts that the Defendants and the defense counsel’s act by the Defendant B does not constitute a assault since they did not exercise the direct force.

According to the evidence, Defendant B recognized the act of putting the clothes of the victim E and putting them under the body of evidence.