Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

On August 31, 2016, the Defendants got the victim F (50 years of age) who was an agent for the victim’s returning home in front of the E cafeteria located in Yangju-si, Yangju-si. However, on the ground that the charges are wurged, Defendant B coming the victim’s face one time by drinking, and Defendant A sustained the victim’s flag, which requires the victim’s treatment for seven days as flag.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A written investigation of suspect, a photograph of damage, and a medical certificate of injury against the Defendants;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants of the Provisional Payment Order: The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that the Defendant B’s face face was missing in the process of pushing the victim, and that Defendant A did not injure the victim by breaking the breath of the victim’s breath, or when Defendant B faces the victim’s face, as stated in the facts charged in this case, as indicated in the facts charged.

In other words, the victim went to the place of this case upon request of a proxy driving from the investigative agency to the court of this case, as follows: (a) Defendant B is too high 25,000 won of the substitute driving fee, which is deemed to have been duly adopted and investigated by this court;

I do not have any such effect.

In other words, the defendant B came to contact with the same amount of agency driving request again, and it would be said that the defendant B was "I cannot impule the same feasp."