However, from the day this judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendants are above one year each.

1. On October 1, 2017, around 18:50 on October 1, 2017, Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim’s days of treatment, such as getting out of the victim’s right eye at the victim’s right eye, when he gets out of the victim’s eye, and gets out of the victim’s right eye, when he gets out of the victim’s right eye.

2. While Defendant B fighting with the victim A (56) and the body at a time and place described in paragraph 1, the Defendant sent two strings, etc. requiring treatment for up to 14 days to the victim when the victim’s right side side part of the victim’s right side part, which is a dangerous object in the vicinity of the victim’s face from the victim (46 cm in length).

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ full and partial statements

1. Bodily damaged photographs (B), injured photographs (A), and each photograph;

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

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment;

B. Defendant B: Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant B who is to be mitigated: Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Taking into account the following factors: The following factors: (a) Defendant A was erroneous for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) there was no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine; and (c) Defendant B was injured; (b) there was a mistake; (c) the first offender was the first offender; and (d) the Defendant was also injured.