Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of 1,000,000 won, and a fine of 700,000 won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 16, 2017, Defendant A committed assault against the victim, such as receiving one-time head parts of the victim DNA from the victim D (V, 37 years of age), etc., on the head attached to the Si/Gun/Gu, which is a parking problem in the parking lot located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu.

2. Defendant B assaulted the victim on his hand, at the above date, at the above time, and at the above place, the victim D (n, 37 years of age) and Si reserve attached thereto, and the victim’s head knife the victim’s head knife on the floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and C;

1. Arrest report of the occurrence of the case, the list of the 112 reported case processing, response to requests for appraisal, investigation report (investigation into the analysis ofCCTV images), investigation report (Investigation intoCCTV images); and

1. Application of photograph (No. 7) and CD (No. 27) legislation

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment (the Defendants; hereinafter the same shall apply) concerning the facts constituting an offense; Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the penalty)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel on the grounds of conviction under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the assertion of Defendant A, who asserted that each crime under the judgment is denied, and that Defendant A constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act even if the act of the Defendant is recognized.

First, as to whether each of the facts stated in the judgment is recognized, the defendant's criminal facts are clearly recognized through the statement of D, etc. in the case of the defendant A, the CD (on-site CCTV) video, etc.

Defendant

In the case of B, the crime of this case did not have been confirmed as CCTV due to the occurrence of the vehicle behind E, and there is no person who observed the dispute between the Defendant and D and C immediately after the occurrence of the crime, and there is no person who shows that E or C took it out, and has correctly observed the whole crime scene, the statement of D despite the conflicting statements between the Defendant and the victim and the victim.