Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 19:19, the victim A, who gets oil in a gas station located in Sungsung-si C, was a vision for smoking tobacco at the gas station; (b) caused the victim’s body to be tightly tightly cut and walked to the body of the victim for treatment for about 14 days by walking the body of the victim.

2. Defendant A set up against the victim B who assaults himself at the same time and place as the above 1. Paragraph 1., Defendant A had the body of the victim tightly walked and walked, and had a complete escape that requires approximately four weeks of treatment on the face of drinking.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A written diagnosis on injury to B, a damaged photograph, and CCTV CD (Defendant B);

1. A legal statement of a witness;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTVs and CCTV images CDs to A;

1. Defendants: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act and Articles 257(1) and 257(2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Defendant B and his defense counsel] asserts that the illegality of Defendant B and his defense counsel is excluded due to an act that does not go against the social rules and regulations, because the victim’s attempted to smoke in the gas station and failed to prevent the occurrence of tobacco in the gas station.

However, according to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that the victim who intends to receive tobacco by the defendant and the victim were scambling with three times in advance, and that the defendant and the victim were pushed ahead with each other, and that the defendant met the victim and scambling the body of the victim again, and the defendant got scambling with the victim. Thus, such defendant's act is merely an attack against the victim, and it is difficult to see that it is reasonable in the means and method, and it does not constitute a justifiable act contrary to social norms.

Therefore, the above argument is accepted.