B The defendant E shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000,000,00,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Defendant

B was a person who was the street of the J church located in Busan Dong-gu H, and the defendant E (O: the name before the opening of the church) was a person who was the internal collector of the J church.

1. The Defendants violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) around 10:40 on July 14, 2013, the Defendants set up against the Nonindicted Party A, who attempted to go up to the new line of view at the JJ conference, and set up against it. Defendant B, who saw the victim AX, the opposite Party AX, was humping, and carried out the arms, and Defendant E got off the victim by going beyond the victim, thereby requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim.

2. At around 10:40 on July 7, 2013, the Defendant suffered injury from Defendant E: (a) by putting in the opposite typology A, sitting down on a snow sect; and (b) putting the opposite ypology A, the opposite Y of the victim AY, the opposite typology, etc., requiring treatment for about 14 days to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Written statements of victims of AX and AY Preparation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each injury diagnosis certificate and video photography;

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

A. Defendant B: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines

B. Defendant E: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint injury), Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury) and the choice of fines, respectively.

1. Aggravated aggravated defendant E: the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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 Defendants asserted that the instant crime was not committed as a legitimate act, and thus, the instant court lawful.