Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 2 million.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants are neighboring residents residing in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu.

On April 25, 2014, at around 15:00, the Defendants captured the abandonment garrison as part of the business of “neitization surgery” in front of the said EM, and found Defendant B, who was in excess of the person concerned with the veterinary hospital, caused Defendant A’s son F to mistake him as an animal abuse, and caused the horses fighting one another on the day of its resistance.

1. Defendant B, at the above date, at the above time and place, carried out the following reasons: (a) the victim A (the age of 62), F and horse fighting; (b) the victim was cut so that he was pushed in several times; (c) the victim was knicked with the victim’s losses; and (d) the victim was in need of approximately six weeks’s medical treatment.

2. Defendant A inflicted injury on the victim, at the above date, at the above time and place, on the victim B (n, 61 years old) and the horse fighting, such as dumping the shoulder part of the victim and knife the knife and knife the knife and knife the knife, etc., requiring approximately three weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the Defendants (including F's statement)

1. Investigation report (to be accompanied by field CCTV images and voice files), CCTV images CDs, and CCTV images;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing body photographs;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense at the time of the crime of this case, the above Defendant’s defense counsel at the time of the crime of this case asserted that even if the above Defendant’s defense part was sealed several times, this constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, and thus, illegality is excluded.

However, the evidence duly adopted by this court is examined.