Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A was engaged in business by setting the sequences in the order of the first place before the K-si driver, the defendant B was a E-si driver, and the G-si driver's office in Gwangju Bank.

1. At around 00:40 on October 17, 2012, Defendant A: (a) purchased a female passenger boarding a taxi in the victim B (the age of 66) on the street in front of the Round of the Mandong Mandong Mandong Mandong-gu Mandong-gu Mandong-gu Mandong-dong Mandong-dong-dong-dong Mandong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, for the victim B to “heep the victim’s face seat seat who is seated in the driver’s seat one time as a drinking, and continued to take down the victim’s mae kne on the ground of the mane-dong-dong Manene-dong treatment days.

2. Defendant B, who was off and loaded on the part of the victim A (the 69-year-old) in opposition to the above act, did not inflict an injury on the part of the above arms by asking the victim A (the 69-year-old) the right arms as soon as possible.

Summary of Evidence

1. 5,6 pages of the second protocol of the trial on the examination of the witness in relation to Defendant B;

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes to damaged parts of photographs;

1. The Defendants: Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

1. The Defendants’ assertion in relation to the Defendants under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act appears to have asserted that the Defendants constituted self-defense in relation to each other. However, in full view of the developments, motive, means, methods, and outcome of the instant case acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendants’ act is merely an act of resistance against each other arising in the course of fighting, and it does not constitute self-defense.