Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants are marital relations, victim D and E are in their own relationship, and Defendant A is the victim D and E.

1. On April 16, 2016, Defendant B: (a) around 16:20, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim D (the 53 years of age) on the ground that the victim D (the son, the son, the son, and the victim were frighted on the land in dispute over ownership between the Defendant and the victim; and (b) caused the Defendant to the right bridge, such as the dynasium and tension in need of a medical treatment for about 14 days by making it possible for the Defendant to take on the part of the hand the knick son and the knickbs.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in paragraph 1, carried the victim D over the ground floor, and continued to inflict bodily injury on the victim E (the 50 years of age), including the victim D and the need for medical treatment for about 14 days, by breaking the victim E on the ground floor more than twice, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement protocol against D or E (Articles 6 through 20 of the investigation records);

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing photographs and site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 257(1) (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) (Selection of Penalty): Defendant B: Article 257(1) (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. A aggravated criminal defendant: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and 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: Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion on the Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were in a mental and physical state due to the dementia disease at the time of the instant crime.

The argument is asserted.

According to the records of this case, although Defendant B was diagnosed with dementia around March 2015, Defendant B is deemed to have been diagnosed with dementia, considering the background of the instant crime, the situation at the time of the instant crime, and Defendant B’s attitude in this court.