Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won, and a fine of 3,00,000 won, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 10:10 on February 13, 2016, Defendant B suffered injury, such as an internal and felging therapy, etc., for approximately six weeks of treatment to the victim who is an employee of the main store in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and a dispute arising from drinking and drinking value. Defendant B took part in the face of the victim due to drinking and knenee, and suffered injury to the victim.

2. Defendant A, as stated in paragraph (1), committed a conflict with the victim B (the age of 25) as stated in paragraph (1), and assaulted the victim’s head.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness B’s legal statement (as to the defendant A)

1. Examination protocol of the defendant B by the prosecution (including the statement of the defendant A);

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the injured party photograph and diagnostic certificate;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine);

B. Defendant B: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendant A alleged that his act was unlawful as self-defense in order to protect himself in the course of assault by the victim. However, considering the circumstances leading up to the assault by the Defendant, the degree and frequency of the assault by the Defendant and the victim, and the circumstances prior to and after the assault, etc., the Defendant and the victim are merely recognized as having fighting one another with the money of the victim, and the act of the Defendant is for defending against the current infringement of his or others' legal interests, and thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is not reasonable.