Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

On October 3, 2017, around 12:00, the Defendants demanded the victim to move to the vegetable garden owned by the Defendants in Won-si, to the vegetable garden D (51 tax). The victim requested the victim to move to the vegetable garden.

The farm roads shall be agricultural.

"A defect that is about to go through dry field continuously, Defendant A flicked the victim's neck by hand, Defendant B used the victim's shoulder by hand, and Defendant B used violence to cover the victim's shoulder by hand. In common, the victim suffered an injury, such as 's salt, tension, etc. in the chill,' which requires treatment for about two weeks for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Part of the protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect against the Defendants

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of some police officers with regard to D (including cross-examination);

1. A report on internal investigation (net 3);

1. A medical certificate [The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendants did not cause injury to the victim, but in light of the diagnosis certificate and the photographs of damage, etc., it is recognized that the victim suffered injury as stated in the facts charged, and this is determined to have occurred in the process of physical fighting with the Defendants, as well as the fact that the Defendants exercised physical power to find the victim out, the above facts charged are sufficiently recognized.]

Application of Statutes

1. Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(2)3 of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine

1. The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that the Defendants’ criminal act constituted a legitimate defense or a legitimate act, and thus, it is acknowledged that the victims frequently had access to the Defendants. However, the pertinent act alone is difficult to be deemed subject to criminal punishment. Thus, the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion against the Defendants and their defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act.