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

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, only 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of E, F and Defendant B are the employees of each of the above companies, and Party E is the company which won the G apartment on July 18, 201.

At around 02:30 on August 3, 201, the Defendants, in collaboration with F, carried out h (46 years of age) and I (57 years of age) from G apartment sales office under a subcontract from J, etc., a constructor of the apartment complex, but failed to receive the construction cost, and carried out the above sales office, and thereby, carried out the victims of the above sales office, the Defendants h (46 years of age) and h (57 years of age). In order to find out the victims of the above sales office from the above sales office, the Defendants h (the victim I's hack belt; F and the Defendant B h (the victim I's bridge) moved out of the sales office, h (the victim H's arms and legs) and pushed out the victim's h (the victim's h was pushed out of the sales office for about 14 days, thereby treating the victims of the above sales office for about 14 days, the victim h (the victim h) h (the victim's h) k for an injury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., and Article 2 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

2. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act for the increase of concurrent crimes;

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

4. The Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order, shall assert that the instant joint injury act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the self-help or social norms.

On the other hand, even if the exercise of the right of retention by the victims is illegal as alleged by the Defendants, the Defendants excluded the interference based on ownership through the preliminary injunction or the lawsuit on the merits.