Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, 50.

Punishment of the crime

On October 14, 2013, at the E Institute located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 2013. 21:05, the Defendants, on the ground that the victim F (the victim F (the f. 38 years of age) did not reach one million won in the settlement amount of the business, Defendant B, by hand, was tightly pushed down the victim F's head at two times at the victim's head and the f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. 8 years of age).

Defendant

A was tightly pushed the victim F's breast part, and was pushed the victim G's breast in a single way, and was pushed the victim's chest in a single way if the f's breast part was obstructed by the female.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G (with respect to the defendant A);

1. Statement of the witness F and G in the third protocol of trial (with respect to the defendant B);

1. Each police interrogation protocol concerning F and G;

1. Application of the statutes governing damaged photographs and EAF video CDs;

1. Relevant Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 260(1) of the same Act, the selection of fines

1. Defendants among concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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: Defendants of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and their defense counsel’s assertion are false and the testimony of F and G was assaulted by the Defendants. Rather, they claim that they are victims.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, unlike the statement that F took the handphone by the police as a hand hand, the fact that the Defendants and F used the handphone at the time of the instant case and that there was a dispute over the problem of settlement of the same business.

On the other hand, the video submitted by the defendants is also F in the office where the defendant B occurred.