Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:30 on June 30, 2012, the Defendants: (a) were married couple, who operated the “E” in the D market shopping center; (b) were engaged in fisheries in the name of “H” before the G cafeteria; and (c) the victim I (54) who was the president of the D market Federation, was the president of the D market shopping federation, and had a good appraisal on the ground that the victim I (54 years of age) was absent from the member of the D market, and was found to be a victim who was making a good appraisal.

Defendant

A expressed the victim’s desire to “the bit of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bomb,” the victim bombed the victim’s bomb bomb, and the victim b b bomb bomb, and the victim b b bomed the victim’s bomb bom bom, and bom bom bom b

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted the injury on the victim, such as Damoptyp, cryp, and tension, which require two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. Statements of Defendant B in part of the first trial records;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing witness I's statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that Defendant A has not exercised the sponsore, etc. of the victim by cutting down or pushing ahead.

2. The evidence presented prior to the determination and the following circumstances recognized by the records of the instant case, namely, the witness J, who observed the instant site, appears to have been able to see the victim and the Defendant A’s breath around the hallway door in the police.