Defendant

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

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

On December 20, 2017, at around 04:30 on December 20, 2017, the Defendants expressed that Defendant B “F” in the main toilet of Songpa-gu Seoul E and 2, “F” to Defendant A, “I am about to follow the aftermath of male,” and Defendant A expressed to the victim G (21 years of age) who was behind the Defendant, “I am to go through the after,” “I am to go through the victim’s hand, I am her her fat, her fat, her fat, her fat, her fat, and her h (21 years of age). Defendant B her fatd the victim H’s face on one occasion on one hand, and her fatd the victim’s face on one hand.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly committed violence to the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of Defendant B and some of Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each police statement made to H and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (the counter party of a wooden person);

1. Relevant Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines

1. Defendants who aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act / [Defendant A and his/her defense counsel did not assault jointly with Defendant B

The argument is asserted.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court: (a) the Defendants’ collaborative act is sufficiently recognized in full view of the following circumstances: (b) Defendant A had exercised force against Victim G in the situation with Defendant B; (c) Defendant B had exercised force against the victims as Defendant A’s assault was prevented; and (d) Defendant B had not exercised force against the victims; and (c) Defendant A had not avoided any restraint even when considering Defendant B’s violent exercise.

The above argument is without merit.

Defendant A with the reason of sentencing: Unless the defendant is subject to juvenile protective disposition.