Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months, and by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

B The above fine shall be imposed.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a driver of E, and Defendant B is a driver of F.

1. On February 12, 2014, at around 11:00, Defendant A driven the E from a three-lane in front of the Pyeongtaek Training Center, and made a left turn to the southwest square along the two-lane. At that time, Defendant A driven the F and made a left turn to the southwest square depending on three-lanes, while Defendant A driven by the victim B(53 years of age) and went to the southwest square and entered the two-lane.

The defendant and the victim, as a result of the trial cost, have parked their own taxis in front of the parking lot of the Bupyeong Training Center, and became a dispute between the taxi and the taxi.

The Defendant, with the victim, was duplicated and was pushed with falp and pushed with falp with the victim, and falp was in line with the victim, resulting in an injury to the victim, which requires approximately 10 weeks of treatment.

2. At the same time and place, Defendant B inflicted injury on the victim A (the age of 49) such as flab and flab and flab with flab, and flab with flab and flab. The franchis exceeded three weeks with the victim, thereby causing approximately three weeks of treatment to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to medical certificates and injury medical certificates;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the imprisonment of the Defendants A and the fine of the Defendants B)

1. Defendant B of detention in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B of the provisional payment order: In a case where Defendant A’s intent to attack one another’s assertion of self-defense under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was enclosed with the intent of attacking one another’s assertion of self-defense, and the act was committed against it, it cannot be deemed as self-defense, since the act was an act of attacking at the same time, and

Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on June 25, 2004