Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million.

The Defendants were punished by fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A, at around 05:40 on December 4, 2016, at the first floor of “D” clubs located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul, Defendant A inflicted injury on the victim’s right side by drinking drinking with the victim E (the remaining and 24 years old) and the victim’s fast-down while working together with the Defendant, such as “satisfing off the inner wall” in need of approximately six weeks of medical treatment.

2. The Defendant, as described in paragraph (1) at the time, place, and victim A (the remaining and the age of 24) committed an injury to the victim, such as “non-freshing the body of the victim,” which requires medical treatment for about 18 days as he / she gets off the Defendant’s work site and found him/her together with his/her employees at his/her site, while taking off the victim from the victim’s work site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Legal statements of witness A and F;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect by the police against the defendant A (including cross-examination part against E);

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each injury diagnosis report and investigation report (the confirmation of injury) (the defendant B and his defense counsel did not cause any injury to the defendant B and the defendant B did not have any injury to the defendant A, and the fact of injury is not confirmed even in the result of CT video reading (Evidence No. 70 pages) with respect to A;

The argument is asserted.

A’s investigative agency and this court’s statement are consistent that the above Defendant 1 was drinking his nose.

The statements of the witness F’s investigative agency and this court are consistent with this, and E, one of the above Defendants, also made a statement to the police to the effect that “A and Defendant B were born from her natives and Defendant B” (Evidence No. 61 of the evidence record), which constitutes a circumstance supporting the credibility of the above statements of A and F.

On the other hand, a doctor who treated A on the day of the instant case provides the symptoms of “infinite finite finite finite finite,” and “infinite finite finite finite”.