Defendant

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

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A, around 21:50 on March 18, 2013, around 21:50, around D Apartment 1002, the victim E and 1102 of the above apartment house were in dispute with the victim E who resided in the above apartment building No. 1102 of the same apartment building, and had the victim's hand over, and had the victim's head head knife., the victim knife the victim's body knife the victim's body knife the victim's head knife, the victim's head knife the victim's body knife the victim's body.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of G, E, and H;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of the G or E injury diagnosis report);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties.

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

1. Parts of the offense under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order;

1. The facts charged in this part of the facts charged reveal the victim as stated in the above facts charged, and the mother of the defendant A, the mother of the defendant Eul, thereby holding the victim's head debt.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted injury on the victim, such as divesal dynamics, which require approximately 14 days of treatment.

2. The Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion did not constitute assaulting the victim’s head debt.

3. We examine whether Defendant B committed an assault by taking the victim’s head debt as stated in the above facts charged.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim E and his father, G, and Dong-in, who was the birth of the victim by gathering the head of the victim’s head. However, the victim was presumed to have been the same as Defendant B’s satisfe and satfe his head by hand in the situation where the victim was satisfumd as at the time of this case.