1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, as described in paragraph (2) from the date and time, at the place, as described in paragraph (2) to the injured party B (n, 53 years old) in Macju World Cup, followed this part of this part by Macju World Cup, and left the gallebane located on the floor of the room room in the place, thereby falling off the floor and making the galbane in favor of the injured party protruding, thereby making the injured party protruding away from the floor, thereby making the victim be protruding, the Defendant was an open top of the right blue part in need of treatment for about two weeks.

2. On July 4, 2015, Defendant B urged the Victim A to pay the money from the “principal store” located in Guri-si, Guri-si, “Sari-si,” and demanded the Victim A to pay the money, which was dangerous in front of the entrance and exit of the room in the location of Yari-si, and caused the Victim to go to the Victim, and caused the Victim to go on the part of the number of days to be treated.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

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

1. A report on investigation;

1. A photograph of damaged hair;

1. On-site features and photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate submitted by B;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant

1. : Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

B. Defendant

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

1. Selection of a fine (Defendant 1);

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 2) Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2) Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Order of community service (Defendant 2) under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B and his defense counsel on the assertion of Defendant B of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant 1.) asserted that Defendant B’s act of having been committed against the victim A is not the instant cup but the instant plastic cup.

However, the victim has consistently made a statement in the investigative agency and this court to the effect that he had complied with the World Cup at the time. The statement is in conformity with the rationality, logic, contradiction, and rule of experience of the content itself, and in the presence of a judge.