Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) 22:55 around 22:22:5, the Defendant: (b) laid the road on the front of the crosswalk in Daegu Suwon-gu D, on the ground that the victim B (the age of 44) was making a sudden stop of the vehicle; (c) the victim, who was seated in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, was fluored once by putting the body into the window, fluor of the victim’s neck on one hand; and (d) the victim again fluored the victim’s face by putting the victim’s face on three occasions with the left hand.

As a result, the defendant suffered injuries, such as the cutting of cage cages that require approximately 38 days of medical treatment.

2. 피고인 B 피고인은 위 1항 기재 일시, 장소에서 피해자 A(37세)으로부터 위와 같이 폭행 당하자 피해자의 멱살을 잡고 오른 주먹으로 피해자의 왼쪽 얼굴을 1회 때리고 왼쪽 가슴부위를 2회 때린 후, 피해자가 넘어지자 발로 피해자의 가슴을 1회 찼다.

As a result, the defendant suffered injuries, such as cage cage cage fage fages at the left-hand side, which requires approximately 28 days medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

[Fact 1]

1. Each legal statement of witness B and F;

1. A medical certificate of injury (21 pages of investigation records);

1. Each photograph (the fact of Article 2 on the market);

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (34 pages of investigation records);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and the choice of punishment. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act

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

1. Defendant A’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is alleged to have been unilaterally satisfied by Defendant A, and the facts constituting the first offense in its holding.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the above evidence, namely, B and F, have consistently made a statement corresponding to the facts of the first offense in the judgment from the beginning of the investigation date, and they unilaterally met from Defendant B in light of the images shown in the photographs.