However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the defendants is against the defendants for one year.

1. On November 27, 2016, at around 21:50, the Defendant: (a) laid the victim’s head in front of the “D cafeteria” located in Tong Young-si on the street, on the ground that the victim B(44 years of age) went against himself/herself; (b) laid the victim’s face at a time when the victim’s head was taken back; (c) the victim’s head was frighted by gathering a boom, which was installed in front of a neighboring commercial building; and (d) the victim’s head was frighted by gathering a stone (10cm in width, 10cm in length, and 10cm in length) which is a dangerous object in his/her neighborhood.

As a result, the defendant carried dangerous things and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as an open wife, etc. on the number of days of treatment.

2. At the time and place specified in paragraph 1, Defendant B, as seen above, inflicted bodily injury on the victim by gathering a stone (10cm wide, 10cm long, 10cm long, and 10cm long) that is a dangerous object in the vicinity of the victim, during the dispute with the victim A (46 tax) at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, and caused the victim to undergo approximately two weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

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

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (on-site dispatch report), investigation report (including attachment of a site photograph - accompanying photo), investigation report (B treatment confirmation document), investigation report (A diagnosis document attached);

1. Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the relevant Criminal Act concerning criminal facts

1. Reduction of volume (defendants) Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendants, on the grounds of suspended sentence (the Defendants), are in danger to each other, causing injury due to the other’s head failure, which is a dangerous article to the other party, is not that of such crime.

However, while the Defendants were suffering from a dispute with drinking together, they brought about a contingency to commit the instant crime, and all the Defendants were involved in the instant crime, and their mistakes are divided.