Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The Defendants were punished by fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the “G restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on June 23, 2017, the Defendant: (b) committed an injury to the victim, such as brain spawn, spawn, spawn, and spawn, which require treatment for about 14 days to the victim, on the ground that the victim’s name was recklessly added to the victim’s work platform, including the victim’s B (53 3) and the horses were recklessly cut to the victim’s name; and (c) spawn the victim’s spathn, spawn; and (d) caused the victim’s spawnosis, spawn spawn, and spawn spawn c

2. Defendant B, at the time and place of paragraph (1) and at the same time, against the victim A (58 taxes) of this Defendant’s bomb, flaps and booms the victim’s bomb and spons, and sponsed the victim’s body with approximately 14 days, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as the victim’s bomb, spacks and spacks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A - Defendant’s legal statement - Each testimony of I, J, and K

1. Defendant B - Application of each of the testimony laws and regulations of J and K

1. Each penal provision, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the detention in the workhouse, Defendant A, even if there are the circumstances of the same case as stated in the criminal facts, is not acceptable or considered. The first use of violence is not acceptable or taken into account. Since the witness’s testimony has been taken into account in the first order in the sentencing, and as a result, the act or result is more serious than Defendant B in the illegality, it should be differentiated in the sentencing.

Defendant

Since the crime B is deemed to be the form of assault, there is a question about the admissibility of the diagnosis document, but it is not sufficient to dismiss it, and it is recognized that the witness's testimony has been used as a whole, and the dispute is not good.