Defendants shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 18, 2017, around 23:45, Defendant A committed an assault against the victim who was waiting for a taxi in front of the “G restaurant” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, with a view to whether the victim B (32 years of age) and who was waiting for a taxi would escape first, and the victim committed an assault against the victim who was flabing the bomb of the Defendant.

2. At the time and place set forth in paragraph 1, Defendant B assaulted the victim A (28C)’s face by pushing ahead of bather and bating bat on the same ground as that set forth in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. The legal statement of witness B and H in part;

1. Application of CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Defendants: Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 260(1) and 260(2) 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: Determination on the assertion by the Defendant A and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the allegation is that the Defendant has roots B’s grandchildren in order to prevent the victim from committing an offence, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant can be found to have committed a fighting disaster with the victim B, and in light of the process, method, etc. of the instant fighting disaster, the victim unilaterally committed an unlawful attack and the defendant cannot be deemed to have exercised tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and to escape therefrom. In such a case, the exercise of tangible power occurring in the course of fighting constitutes an act of attack against the other party at the same time, which constitutes an act of attack against the other party. Thus, the defendant’s act cannot be deemed as a passive resistance, which constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate defense.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

The acquittal part (Defendant A)

1. This part.