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

The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. On December 22, 2012, around 15:40 on December 2, 2012, the Defendant assaulted the victim B (55 years of age) by breaking bherbing bherb and destroying the floor of the victim on the ground that the victim B (55 years of age) in the “F” restaurant within the Seo-gu Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

B. At around 17:00 on the same day, the Defendant continued to conduct an investigation in relation to the assaulting of the victim at the G District District of Daejeon Police Station G District, which was 17:00 on the same day, and caused the victim’s face to be satisfed and fatd, and batd by fating fat and destroying fats beyond the floor, thereby requiring approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim.

2. On December 22, 2012, Defendant B around 15:40, at a “F restaurant,” Defendant 2 dumpeded the victim A (59 years of age) and the victim with sulbage, and flapsed over the bottom, and applied approximately two weeks of flaps and tensions to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. A’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. A defendant who has the relevant provision of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment against the crime: Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act; and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant A from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: In a case where they were sealed with the intent of attacking one another as to the assertion of self-defense by Defendant B under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and they were set up against it, the harmful act is an act of attack at the same time as an act of attack, and thus does not constitute self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). In full view of the process of the Defendants’ physical fighting as recorded in the record, Defendant B shall be deemed as self-defense.