Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B At around 05:30 on November 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) in the F bathhouse located in Suwon-gu, Busan, the Defendant: (b) thought that the Defendant’s wife works as a locker when he takes a bath; (c) his family members thought that vain was sent vain; and (d) the Victim A (57 years old) was vain in the process when she saw that she was her husband and her talked about her talks, and she was sat back to the Kabro, and she was sated by the victim, leading the victim’s fat, leading the fat, leading the victim’s fat, leading the snow to drinking, and she was injured on the victim’s right fat, the right fat, the right leged sat, and the coordinate.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of the defendant A;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 25 (3) 2 and 3, Article 32 (1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, etc. of Application for Compensation Orders;

1. Defendant A, at the time and place stated in the facts constituting the above crime, had the face face of Defendant B (year 70) taken once as drinking against Defendant B’s act, and had the victim injured the victim on the left-hand side of the face requiring two weeks medical treatment.

2. According to the evidence examined by this court, at around 05:20 on November 21, 2012, Defendant B entered the bath gate with Defendant A at around 05:20 (the visual time ofCCTV image), and first moved Defendant A’s face and chest, etc. out of the camera, and reported Defendant A to 112 by telephone out of this, and Defendant B reported to Defendant B by telephone. After that, Defendant B was able to talk with Defendant B while putting the bath gate of the above bath bath, but the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone was found to have been found to have been found to have been drinking Defendant B.

or the defendant A.