A shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won, and a fine of 300,000 won, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Defendant A: (a) around 05:40 on April 16, 2014, on the ground that Defendant A took a new outbreak of the victim B, which was located on the new site floor at the Youngdo National Sports Center 6, Youngdo-ro, Busan, Youngdo-ro, 79 U.S. Mado-ro, Mado-ro, and 6, U.S. Do-do-ro, the Defendant A expressed a desire to be “chake” to the victim, and was injured by a brush, etc., such as a boom, which requires treatment for about three weeks, when the breads listed on the part of the victim’s ship can be recovered into the hand floor, and the breads of the breadg-ro

2. Defendant B, at the time and place set forth in the preceding paragraph, suffered an injury in the number of days of treatment by putting the victim’s breath on breath and booming breath, with the victim’s violence against Defendant B at the time and place set forth in the preceding paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. Investigation report (to listen to shots' telephone statements);

1. Photographs and written diagnosis of injury (Defendant B);

1. A’s legal statement;

1. Investigation report (to listen to shots' telephone statements);

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant B and the defense counsel's assertion of the defendant B and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the defendant B and the defense counsel's assertion that if the defendant B used assault against the victim, it is solely intended to oppose the victim's unilateral assault, and thus, it is not unlawful as self-defense. However, according to the evidence above, the defendant B did not have a unilateral assault from the victim, but has an intent to attack against the other party. Thus, the above argument is rejected.