Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 50,000 won, and a fine of 300,000 won, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants, as the residents of Ansan-gu, Ansan-si, dispute between the victims and apartment controlled entities.

1. Defendant A

A. On May 10, 2010, the Defendant, at around 23:50 on May 10, 2010, inflicted injury on the victim, such as dives, dives, etc., requiring treatment for about two weeks on the ground that the Defendant, at the above apartment management office, made an insulting speech to the victim E (Nam and 41 years of age), became the victim and the victim as a vision, and was flabed with flab and flabed with the victim,

B. At the time and place set forth in the above “A”, the Defendant committed assault, such as cutting down and pushedping the fat of the victim’s f (ma, 48 years old) to speak the said E and the Defendant’s fighting.

2. Defendant B committed assault to the victim on the date and place under the above 1.1. The victim F and trial expenses, caused the victim F and paton, and caused the victim's bat to be fatd with the wall behind the bat.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of each of the Defendants

1. Each police statement concerning E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of an injury diagnosis certificate and written confirmation;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury) and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) against the criminal facts

1. Defendants who choose to impose punishment: Each selective fine

1. Defendant A from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 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: The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendants constitutes a justifiable act to defend themselves in the course of the victims’ assaulting the Defendants, but the contents, details, etc. of each of the instant crimes.