Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of two thousand won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 3, 2013, at around 17:00 on April 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) while having conflicts with the victim B (the age of 74) in a restaurant called “F cafeteria” located on the third floor of the building in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant: (b) caused an empty space, which is a dangerous object at which the back number of the victim was cut back once by hand; (c) caused an empty beer’s head by one time; and (d) continued to have a part of the victim’s face once by a shoulderer.

As a result, the defendant carried dangerous things with the victim about three weeks of treatment, and the victim was suffering from a diversative dystrophy, etc.

2. The Defendant B, at the same date, at the same time and place as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) above, made it time to see the victim’s face due to drinking, while engaging in a dispute with the victim A (the age of 63).

As a result, the Defendant brought about multiple gambling cases requiring treatment for about two weeks to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness G and B;

1. Medical certificate and photograph [Defendant B]

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. A witness G and each legal statement of A;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to diagnostic certificates and photographs;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1)3 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Defendant A for discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B of detention in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A: Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant A asserts to the effect that it constitutes self-defense or excessive defense because he was at the time when the victim B was involved to defend himself due to the risk of breaking the head of a brain surgery in the past. However, according to each of the above evidence, Defendant A first purchased the victim B from the victim B, and thus, the crime of this case is defensive.