Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five hundred thousand won.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 20, 2018, Defendant A, at around 11:25, suffered bodily injury, such as double gambling, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, on the part of the victim, following the victim B (the victim B (the victim B) who is an electrical engineer, was unable to perform electrical construction works, and the victim B (the victim B) who is an electrical engineer was about to go beyond the victim, due to the defect that he was about to go beyond the victim.

2. Defendant B suffered violence from the victim A (the age of 55) at the above date and time, and at the above place, Defendant B, by hand, killed the victim’s arms and shoulder, and pushed down the victim with approximately two weeks of medical treatment. In addition, the Defendant inflicted a multiple-time injury, such as divers, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of the upper part of A arms and of the head knife in B;

1. Defendants: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of fines

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: The Defendants’ assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act denied the instant crime.

In this court, the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the spouse E at the time stated in the investigative agency that “the Defendant’s spouse at the time was “at the time of the instant case, even though the Defendant did not look at one another at the body at the time of the instant case,” and the contents of the statement are considerably detailed and detailed, and thus, Defendant A, near the E, did not have any content favorable to the breath, and thus, there is considerable credibility. ② In the case of Defendant A, the investigative agency recognized the fact that the victim’s head was missing by the victim’s head. At the time, the victim’s head was omitted.