Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won, and a fine of 300,000 won, respectively, for Defendant B.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants are married, and the victim D(M, 47 years old) is the fifth degree of her husband and wife.

Defendants, on September 21, 2015, had several persons, such as Eastern residents and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, in front of the Defendants in Y on September 21, 2015, the Defendants were in dispute with the victim due to the boundary surveying of the FF land in YY. B, Defendant A, as the law, “this year, under the influence of this year, under the influence of this law.”

D. Defendant B’s written indictment stating that Defendant B was “the same year,” but the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the said remarks were made. As such, this is excluded. In short, Defendant B’s written indictment stating that Defendant B was “the same year, which is not the same as that of a human being.”

In other words, the victim was openly insultingly insultingd by his or her abusive theory.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness D and G;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes verifying contents;

1. Relevant Articles 311 and 30 of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Articles 311 and 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant A and his defense counsel used the expression “year” to the victim of the fifth degree of 5th degree of 5th degree of 5th degree of 5th degree of 5th degree of 5th degree of 5th degree of 5th degree of 5th degree of 5th year.

This asserts that this does not constitute a “compacting” that may undermine the social evaluation of the personal value of the victim.

However, in full view of the statements made by the victim in the investigative agency and this court, the statements made by witnesses G in this court, and the developments leading up to the occurrence of the case, Defendant A.