1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won;

2. When Defendant A does not pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A around 02:00 on May 22, 201, at the E-ju store located in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, the victim G (the age of 65) did not go to the company when the victim G (the age of 65) went to the outside of the company, thereby assaulting the victim H and the victim, who took a bladr H and the victim with sather sather sather sather sather sather sather sather sather sather sather sather sather sather, and taking a sather sather sather sather sather sather,

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

2. Each legal statement of G, I, J, and K;

3. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol against Defendant A and H

4. Each police statement of J, G, K, L, and I;

5. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis of injury to G;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 2 (1) of the same Act concerning the Selection of Punishment of Violences, etc. and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

3. The part not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant B) of the provisional payment order;

1. On May 22, 2011, Defendant B: (a) around 02:00 on May 22, 2011, at the Eju shop located in Kimhae-si, the part of the facts charged: (b) the victim G (the age of 65) did not go to the death when the F, one’s daily infinite, went to the outside of the disturbance; (c) the victim G, A, and H, who carried the erobbbb, was taken by cutting the erobb, thereby cutting the erobb, and the Defendant B erod the victim’s head with the beer’s disease located there.

As a result, Defendant B, in collaboration with Defendant A and H, had two or more open addresses requiring medical treatment for about 21 days.

2. The witness G, K’s each legal statement, and L’s written statement of the police officer’s statement concerning L constitutes a case in which it is impossible to make a statement due to death. In light of the fact that the circumstances in which the instant case occurred and the subsequent circumstances are specifically stated, and that any inconsistency is not discovered, the statement is particularly reliable.