A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three months and by imprisonment for four months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

1. Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months after he/she was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for an injury at the Seoul Northern District Court on July 8, 2016;

On May 11, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of injury, and on November 21, 2017, the said judgment became final and conclusive and became void.

2. On November 4, 2017, at around 05:50 on November 4, 2017, the Defendants: (a) fresh the victim E (24 years old); (b) fresh the victim’s face, body, etc. due to drinking and growth; (c) fresh the victim’s face, body, etc.; and (d) fresh the victim’s face, body, etc. due to drinking and growth.

As a result, the Defendants jointly put the victim into a medical care for the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. A damaged photograph;

1. Criminal records as stated in the judgment: Investigation report (verification of the facts A) and the judgment of acceptance status of each individual, etc., and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of subparagraph (A);

1. Article 2 (2) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 37 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act shall apply to Defendant A;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (as to Defendant B), Article 62 of the suspended execution (as to Defendant B);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act against Defendant B;

1. When considering the fact that Defendant A committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished several times due to the same crime, it is deemed that there was a concurrent crime as prescribed by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the previous conviction in which the instant crime and the judgment have become final and conclusive, and thus, a judgment is rendered at the same time.