Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants were jointly engaged in the case of victims E (year 5) and monetary issues on the front road of Busan Metropolitan City, around 20:15, May 14, 2013.

Accordingly, Defendant B carried a balp of the victim, and Defendant A caused the victim’s injury to the left balp, such as a balp, which requires the victim’s treatment for about seven days, by using a small balp, a stone and a balbbbbing with a small amount of the face and left hand of the victim’s left part.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of photographs and written diagnosis of injury;

1. Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, the selection of a fine, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of a fine;

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

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

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendants jointly and severally inflicted injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged.

2. In a case where the statement of the witness, including the victim, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, the court below should not reject the statement without any separate evidence to deem the credibility objectively objectively, unless there exist any other evidence to prove the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005). In addition, the judgment of the victim of the crime of injury submitted by the victim is not sufficient to directly prove the fact that the injury as mentioned therein was caused by the Defendant’s criminal act, since the victim’s statement revealed the cause of the injury based on the victim’s medical expertise and stated the part and degree of the injury observed and judged by mobilization of medical expertise.