Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 8, 2012, at around 04:00, Defendant A placed the victim’s head at the direction part of the E-road located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the ground that the victim F (27 tax) was fluorily danced on the said club, Defendant A was placed in a trial for the following reasons: (a) Defendant 1 was the victim’s face; and (b) Defendant 1 was the victim’s head at one time on the top of his/her bend part, on the ground that the victim’s f (27 tax) was fluorly danced; and (c) Defendant 1 was the victim’s head at one time.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim by the number of days of treatment.

2. Defendant B, at the above time and place, observed the above situation at late and the above situation at the above club and told the fighting, but the above victim led the victim to take the head debt of the victim who did not hear the horses, and was assaulted by the victim at the time and at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness F, and some of the witness B’s legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by a part of the prosecution against the defendant B (including the F part concerning the statement);

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. G statements;

1. Investigation report (CCTV analysis);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of a fine;

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

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order

1. As to Defendant A, Defendant A’s defense counsel asserted that the act of Defendant A was committed by the victim for the purpose of protecting the body of his/her own and his/her name in an attack against the victim, and thus, illegality is denied as it constitutes a legitimate defense. However, in full view of the above evidence, there is considerable reason to view the Defendant’s act as an act aimed at defending the current illegal infringement of the legal interests of himself/herself