A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

The Defendants, around 4:30 on March 25, 2017, 201, on the grounds that the victim G was replaced by “F main store” located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E, and the Defendant A, her, she laid the victim’s face over the floor by putting off the victim’s clothes, took the victim’s face back in drinking, taken the victim’s body above the victim’s body back, her combined with it, taken the victim’s body back up, taken the victim’s body back up by hand, and took the victim’s hair face by hand and taken the her hair face by drinking.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to H, G, I, and J;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the penalty choice; Defendant A shall be given the following favorable circumstances; Defendant B shall be given the degree of participation and the first offender’s circumstances)

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) are disadvantageous to Defendant A, as well as certain violence barriers against Defendant.

It is more so doing if we drink.

The crime of this case occurred during the period of probation.

The more favorable normal perpetrator agreed to the victim only and promptly due to the violence of both parties, which combines the victim.

Four persons who have suffered damage participate in a fighting at the site of the day in which they belong, and there are certain reasons to return to the other party in the course of the occurrence of a contingency case.

According to the notification data of the Protection Monitoring Board, the Defendant respondeded relatively faithfully to the supervision of the Protection Monitoring Officer.

On the other hand, as in this case, the psychological consolation of the suspended execution that grants the time of self-esteem does not work properly in the crime that occurred from contingent trial expenses, such as this case.

At present, the Defendant.