Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A. Defendant B is a warden, and Defendant B is a person operating a general restaurant with mutual knowledge. 1. Defendant A: (a) around 14:45 on June 4, 2016, 201: (b) around F in front of Silung-si, Silung-si, Defendant B, and Defendant B, “I am in front of Silung-si,” and (c) on the part of Defendant B, while passing through his own road narrow due to the vehicle parked by Defendant B, the vehicle of Defendant B is shocked by negligence, and “I am in front of the vehicle.”

“I am sound,” and intended to do so.

Accordingly, Defendant B was able to take a bath at the vehicle due to the defect in this paragraph, and was assaulted twice to take the bath and to take the shoulder in a drinking manner.

Accordingly, Defendant B, who driving away away away from her own country, spawd his own will, etc. once, and spawd his body, and spawd his head and spawd his body.

2. Defendant B, against this, committed an assault against Defendant A by putting spather and body spherbling and sphering the wall.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Photographss of B, ctv images submitted by B, and ctv course photographs taken by the police officers called the scene;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of photographs submitted by suspect A);

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime - Defendants: Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Penalty)

1. Attraction of a workhouse - Defendants: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. The Defendants’ order of provisional payment - Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Defendant B and his defense counsel] asserts that the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate defense.

However, in light of the background and attitudes of the instant assault crime, which is acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, the instant assault crime is deemed to have the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of attack committed during a fighting, and thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute a legitimate defense.

Therefore, Defendant B and his defense counsel's assertion.