A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. On March 3, 2014, around 19:20 on March 3, 2014, Defendant A abused the victim B (the age of 68) who had not been given appraisal due to an injury case before it, and flabbbing with flaps of the victim by hand.

2. Defendant B, at the time, at the place under the preceding paragraph, and at the time, at the victim A (the age of 67), franchisized the franchis as seen above and inflicted injury on the victim, such as thalle, requiring medical treatment for about three weeks on the part of the victim’s franchis.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of a witness A and B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each injury diagnosis certificate (limited to the defendant B);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine);

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

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

1. Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of Defendant B and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. Defendant B asserted to the effect that, at the time of the crime of this case, inasmuch as an injury was inflicted on Defendant A’s part of his entrance in the process of dumping Defendant B’s dump during the process of dumping the dump of

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A’s act was committed with the intent of attacking against Defendant A, rather than with the intent of defending the wrongful attack of Defendant A. In light of the parts and degree of the injury inflicted by Defendant A, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B’s act was committed with the intent of attacking against Defendant A, rather than with the intent of defending the unjust attack of Defendant A. The harmful act of Defendant B is a defensive act, and at the same time, it cannot be viewed as self-defense, and thus, Defendant B and his defense counsel’s above assertion is rejected.

The acquittal portion

1. Defendant A of the facts charged on March 3, 2014