A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and the defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Defendants A sent a large amount of sound within the Seoul subway No. 5 line to each other, and Defendant A was in sight of each other.

1. On October 13, 2013, Defendant A around 21:20, around 21:20, at the fire-prevention plane platform in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Defendant A, as seen above, was a trial expense, and was placed on the right side where approximately two weeks of treatment is required for Defendant A to catch 2’s flaps and take a drinking face.

2. Defendant B had the face of Defendant A by drinking at the above date, time, and at a place, had the face of Defendant A, and had the face of the said A to get out of the elevator after getting off the elevator with the head of the said A, leaving the subway pole, and walking the body of Defendant B face with the head of the subway pole, and the head of the said A’s body cannot be ascertained.

Summary of Evidence

[Fact 1]

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A by the police;

1. Investigation report (report on the confirmation of the market cost in trading subways);

1. A medical certificate (B);

1. Bodily damaged photo (B), B upper photo (the fact of No. 2 on the market);

1. Defendant B’s legal statement (as of the second trial date);

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A by the police;

1. Investigation report (report on the confirmation of the market cost in trading subways);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injured part photograph (A);

1. Defendants of the relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment concerning criminal facts: Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendant A’s defense counsel in determining the assertion of Defendant A’s defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; even if Defendant A committed an assault against Defendant B, such act is an act to escape from the present unreasonable infringement in the course of unilaterally being abused by Defendant B, and constitutes self-defense or an act of resistance passive to escape from violence, and is justifiable.