However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On March 15, 2015, at around 04:00, the Defendants jointly joined the victim F (35 years of age) who was arguing that the taxi driver E and the victim F (35 years of age) was under dispute over the time of trial from the frontway located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City as a taxi driver E and the number of passengers, and the Defendants met E, and Defendant B took the face and body of the victim due to drinking and learning, and Defendant A also took the face and body of the victim back to drinking and launching, and the victim’s face and body cannot be identified.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury upon the victim who could not know the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to F;

1. Relevant Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Selection of Punishment of Violences, etc., Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act,

1. Reasons for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending sentence] general injury [the scope of recommending sentence] is not subject to punishment [the decision of sentence] under the mitigated area (two to one year] under the mitigated area (the general injury] (the decision of sentence] under the circumstances, results, agreement with the victim, and other factors, such as the defendants' age, character and conduct, circumstances after the commission of the crime shall be determined as per the order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.