Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a resident who objects to the redevelopment of the area of Socheon-si, Seocheon-si, and Defendant B is a resident who consents to the redevelopment of the area.

1. On September 18, 2012, Defendant A, in relation to the redevelopment of the said area on the street in front of the Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 2012, had been punished by Defendant B and Si expenses on one occasion on the left side of Defendant B, and had the Defendant B suffered injury, such as patha, which requires a 14-day medical treatment.

2. Defendant B, in setting up against Defendant A’s above act at the date, time, and at a place under the preceding paragraph, she dumpeded his flaps, and she dumpeded his flaps, and she dumpededed his flaps, and she dumpededed his flaps for 14 days to Defendant A.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each testimony of a witness A and B;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and investigation reports (with respect to the submission of injury diagnosis reports);

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel's arguments under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A is only a citizen who was living alone the right side of Defendant B, and there is no fact at the time of Defendant B as stated in its reasoning. Furthermore, Defendant A’s above act constitutes self-defense, and thus, Defendant A should be pronounced not guilty.

B. Defendant B is only a fact that Defendant B was closely involved in the part of Defendant A, and there is no fact at the time of Defendant A as indicated in its reasoning. Moreover, Defendant B’s above act constitutes self-defense, and thus, Defendant B should be pronounced not guilty.

2. According to the above evidence, the Defendants were assaulted by the other party at this court and the investigative agency as stated in its reasoning.