Defendants are not guilty.

1. Facts charged;

A. On May 10, 2015, Defendant A, at the second floor E-2 store located in Sung-nam-si, Madong-gu, Sungnam-si, Madong-si, Kim Sung-si, the Defendant: (a) committed an assault against the victim F (the 57 years of age) who had attempted to work at the store; (b) on the ground that he did not have the cryp money for the beer purchased on May 9, 2015, the preceding day, on the ground that he did not sell the beer money for the beer purchased on May 9, 2015; (c) carried the part of the victim’s left arms and the part of the chest with other descendants.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the left-hand dump salt, which requires treatment for about 14 days.

B. The Defendants jointly committed the crime committed by the Defendants, such as the date, time, and place specified in the above paragraph (1) and the victim G (the remaining, the age of 31) with Defendant A’s arms in order to speak for assaulting Defendant A F, as described in the above paragraph (1), and Defendant B, who was on the right side of the victim, committed assaulting the victim’s her arms, and Defendant B, who was in front of the victim, jointly with it, when two times the victim’s buck with his hand.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the complete shacker salt, which requires treatment for about 14 days.

2. The Defendants’ assertion and their defense counsel asserted that ① in the process of Defendant A’s request to the F working at the shop, Defendant A had a large amount of sound, and G appeared when Defendant A’s face was taken to drink, and Defendant A did not assault Defendant A, and ② Defendant B only told the fighting, and the Defendants did not assault G.

3. As to the facts charged, the lower court determined that the Defendants were assaulted by the Defendants, i.e., the F, and G

In particular, Defendant A, even in 2013, has a record of having prepared a written agreement (Evidence No. 28 pages) with which Defendant A would not have access in the future by leaving the cabares of this case. In consideration of the fact, Defendant A again exercised violence in the Kabane.