Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won, and a fine of 500,000 won, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A, around 00:00 on September 18, 2014, on the ground that the victim B (the age of 49) was slicked at the billiard of “F” located under the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, Defendant A brought an injury to the victim, i.e., the victim’s maths and snow part of the body of the victim, who flicked with Si expenses, and flicked the blick, and glicked the blick, and glicked the blick, and glicked the blick part of the body of the victim, who

2. Defendant B, at the time, and at the same place as indicated in paragraph (1), the head of the victim A (the age of 44) and the Si reserve attached thereto for the same reason, was injured by the victim’s inception, and the victim was faced with an injury, such as her old spathn and spathn in which the number of treatment days cannot be known.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. The legal statement of the defendant A (as of the second trial date);

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant B concerning the police officer

1. Investigation report (Submission of a medical certificate) (Defendant B);

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders;

1. Defendants’ relevant legal provisions on criminal facts and choice of punishment: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act / [Defendant B and his/her defense counsel] / Defendant A and his/her future counsel merely exercised tangible power against Defendant B, and Defendant B did not exercise tangible power against Defendant B, and even if there were such facts, Defendant B’s exercise of tangible power constitutes self-defense as it was conducted to defend Defendant A and H during the course of assaulting from Defendant A and H. The exercise of tangible power by Defendant B constitutes self-defense. In light of the foregoing evidence, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment are sufficiently recognized according to the aforementioned macroscopic evidence, and the act of Defendant B cannot be seen as constituting self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the above assertion is not accepted]

1. Defendants to be detained in a 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