Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

At around 01:50 on October 19, 2013, the Defendants: (a) while drinking alcohol at the main point of “E” located in Northern-gu, Northern-si, Mapo-si; (b) Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, the victims of the victim’s face; and (c) Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, the victims of the victim’s head debt

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant B by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the letter of injury diagnosis (section 4);

1. The Defendants: Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment of crimes;

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: Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion as to the assertion of Defendant B and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the above Defendant did not have any act such as gathering the victim’s head debt.

However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted in this court, including the witness F’s statement, and duly admitted, the defendant B’s defectiveness that the victim, who was faced with the defendant A, attempted to injure the above defendant, was found to have been satisfed and followed the victim’s head, and thus, the above defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.