Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Punishment of the crime

On August 16, 2014, the Defendants were to undergo a test on the grounds that the victim F (the age of 16) was fluenced in other tables among drinking alcohol at E heading in Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, and Defendant B was to conduct a test on the following grounds: (a) Defendant B’s shoulder by hand is “the victim’s chest and neck” in the facts charged; (b) However, according to the statement of the police interrogation protocol against the victim F (the investigation record 2:3 pages) of the police interrogation protocol against the victim F, the Defendants were to change the above facts charged.

In order to take the head of the victim's head by hand, and the defendant A committed violence against the victim by putting the head of the victim's head by hand.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol concerning F and G;

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. Investigation report (Investigation of the counter party of the shootings);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (as to the statement of a person for reference J (E));

1. The Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion as to the Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is alleged to the effect that the crime of this case committed by Defendant B constitutes self-defense in relation to the other party. However, in full view of the developments, motive, method, and consequence of this case acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the above Defendant’s act is merely an act of resistance against each other arising in the course of fighting, and it cannot be viewed as self-defense. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.