A shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won, and by a fine of 1,00,000 won, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

The Defendants are people who work on a street in the area around the New-ro 14 Seoul Western Elementary School in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. At around 10:30 on July 19, 2014, Defendant A assaulted the victim B, including: (a) whether the victim B “influence of why he was fluent, and he was fluent,” and (b) whether the victim B “influence of why he was fluent, and he was fluent,” and when the victim’s face was fluent.

2. Defendant B, in opposition to the assault of the victim A at a time and place under Paragraph (1), was inflicted an injury on the victim’s face and head by putting the victim’s breath and flaps, and at the disposal of the victim’s glap and head.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness E, A, and B;

1. Application of each statute on filing of a complaint;

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

A. Defendant A: Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Articles 262, 260(1), and 257(1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that the illegality of the Defendants’ act as self-defense is excluded, since the judgment on the allegations by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was only passive resistance against each other’s act of attack.

In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was done with the intent of attacking one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was committed against one another, the act is a defense act, and at the same time the act has the nature of the act of attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 Decided March 28, 2000, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 Decided June 25, 2004, etc.).