1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. A around 00:10 on December 17, 2018, Defendant A and the victim are under the influence of alcohol in the building of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the defendant’s house living room of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and subparagraph D.

The victim's body boomed the victim's face to be 3 to 4 weeks of treatment. The victim's face was diversified.

2. Defendant B, at the time and time of the entry in the preceding paragraph, sent a 14-day face of the victim A (here, 36 years of age) at the time of the fraud, which is an dangerous object, and had an inner diversopic heat requiring medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness A, B, E, and F;

1. A photograph of the situation, A submitted photograph of damage, and written diagnosis of injury at the time of arrival of the site;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing diagnostic reports, B submitted photographs;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine);

B. Defendant B: Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant B) Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant B) of the suspended execution;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. Determination on the assertion by the parties to Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument asserts that the defendant A merely saw B's Dogology to oppose B's act and did not take the face of B, etc.

Defendant

B asserts that the escape of A unilaterally from A, and that A does not have any fact when it comes to fraud.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in the judgment, the following circumstances revealed can be acknowledged as follows: (a) at the time and place of the judgment; (b) Defendant A suffers diversity typology by taking the face of Defendant A at the time and at the place of the judgment; and (c) Defendant B was aware of the face of Defendant B at the time and at the time of fraud.

E, together with A and at the same time, has been conducted by the investigative agency.