In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 50.

1. At around 20:30 on April 19, 2013, Defendant A: (a) had been talked with the victim B (the age of 53) and E-building management and operation issues, which led to the Defendant’s injury to the victim, such as a eye, an open wound around the snow, and an open room around the snow, which require approximately three weeks of treatment by cutting off his breath and pushinging his breath, while talking with the victim B (the age of 53) and E-building management and operation issues.

2. Defendant B, on the same date, at a place as in paragraph (1) and at the same time as in paragraph (1), performed an act of assault by the victim A (the age of 53), franchising his fat, and franchising his head, and franchising his cat, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as a bridge, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of Defendant A and some of Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to suspects and field photographs;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

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

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing order under Article 334(1) does not relax the Defendants’ liability in light of the method of committing the instant crime and the content of damage. However, the Defendants’ agreement as the perpetrator and the victim, and the relationship between the Defendants, etc. shall be taken into account.