Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won, and a fine of 500,000 won, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

On October 27, 2016, the Defendants: (a) 21:10 on October 27, 2016, on the ground that the victim F (e.g., 64 years of age) working at the “E” restaurant located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as an employee, Defendant B saw the victim’s breath, led about about 6m in front of the window above the restaurant entrance where the Defendant A is seated, led about about 6m of the victim’s breath, breath, and breath; (b) Defendant A took the victim’s left hand and shoulder; and (c) Defendant B feld kne on the floor by dividing the victim’s shoulder and shoulder.

In this way, the Defendants jointly committed violence against the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness F;

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

1. G statements;

1. Application of investigation reports (in the face of a crime, CD attachment), photographs on the face of a crime, and CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes in the face of a crime;

1. The Defendants: Article 2 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of a punishment) concerning criminal facts;

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion as to the assertion of Defendant B and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Defendant B and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that Defendant B merely take the victim’s hand and bring the victim to Defendant A, and that these acts by Defendant B constitute justifiable acts that do not violate social rules.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view that Defendant B’s act constitutes a justifiable act, as it has objective validity that is acceptable in light of the means, method, and consequence, etc. of the instant crime by evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court.

Therefore, the above arguments are all made.