1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, by a fine of three million won, by a fine of three million won, and by a fine of five million won.

2...

Punishment of the crime

On March 31, 201, at around 22:30, the Defendants were at the time of the dispute on the grounds that the Defendants expressed their desire with the victim H, I, and J in front of G, located in Gwangju City, G, on the grounds that they expressed their desire. The Defendants were at the time of drinking and drinking of the victim H, I, and J several times due to drinking and drinking.

As above, the Defendants assaulted the victims jointly, and inflicted injury on the victim H, including a total of six weeks of medical treatment, on the right side part of the entrance, which requires approximately two-day medical treatment, and inflicted on the victim I injury such as typosis in the right side part of the entrance, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, on the part of the victim J, such injury as typry in the course of distribution to the victim J, on the part of the victim K such as an influence in the number of days of treatment, and on the part of the victim L, on the part of the victim, the victim caused the injury such as an influoral chitis that requires approximately two

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of Defendant B and C

2. Each legal statement of the witness H, I, and K;

3. Each injury diagnosis letter;

4. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing bodily injuries;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines

2. Defendants among concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

3. The Defendants in the Nowon-gu: (a) of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, Defendant A merely told Defendant B and C not to participate in violence; (b) Defendant B and C did not assault the victim H’s knee, and thus, Defendant B and C did not have any causal link with the Defendants’ harmful act.

However, in light of the above evidence, in particular, the victim H consistently exceeded kneeing his own left side from the investigative agency to the court of law, and Defendant A stated that the head debt was kneing to prevent the Defendant from occurring beyond his own seat, etc., the facts charged in the judgment are sufficient.