Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,00, and by a fine of KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 03:30 on January 29, 2014, Defendant A, at the main point of “E” in the fourth floor of the building located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant injured the victim’s face and bridge surface accompanied by a non-alley 12 weeks of treatment (all parts) for the victim, on the following occasions:

2. Defendant B, at the same time and place as in the foregoing paragraph, she saw the victim A (Nam, 24 years of age) to face one time on drinking on the ground that the victim A (Nam, 24 years of age) would go against the defendant, and inflicted injury on the victim, such as a flady, flady, flady, and flady on the left side of the flash that requires treatment for about three weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect A by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police suspect examination protocol concerning F;

1. Defendants: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of fines

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: The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is deemed to be a single group fighting, and thus, the crime is a contingent crime in light of the nature of the crime, the motive and process of the crime, the fact that the rest of multiple participants did not want the punishment of each other, and the case is terminated smoothly, and the degree of injury to the victim F is not less than that of the victim. However, Defendant A agreed to pay 11 million won to the victim F for medical expenses and consolation money, etc., and the victim F was entirely damaged by Defendant A.

It seems that the victim F himself is more likely to have been damaged in the course of the arrival of the defendant A while the victim F is going to the test table for the defendant A, rather than in the future.