Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. On October 19, 2014, at around 00:40 on October 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at G Industries company located in the Namyang-si of Gyeonggi-do; (b) at the victim B (33 years of age) and C (21 years of age), the victim B (33 years of age) were defective to report himself as a drinking driving; (c) the victim B’s face is hicked by both hand; and (d) the victim C’s face was hicked by continuing to restrain him from driving.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim B in the number of days of treatment, and injury to the victim C in the cco that requires approximately 22 days of treatment.

B. A special intimidation: (a) the Defendant took the same attitude that, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in paragraph (1) of Article 1, the victim B (3) and C (21) for the said reasons, he saw a monet flag, which is a dangerous object that was used in a construction section, and took the same attitude that the victim B, C, H (33), I (3), I (29), and I (29), “I would be dead” and “I will be dead.”

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened victims, respectively.

2. Defendant B and Defendant C were dissatisfied with the above date, time, and at the above place, at the above time, at the victim A(44 years of age), Defendant B was able to drink the victim’s face, and went beyond the victim’s bridge to walk the victim’s bridge, and Defendant C was at one time at the victim’s face.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim, such as a franchising, which requires approximately six weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Although Defendant A denies the instant crime, the statements made by the victim Party B and C are consistent with the facts constituting the crime, and the explanation thereof is specific and detailed, each statement has credibility.

For the purposes of this Court.