1. On November 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 02:00, at a D cafeteria located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (b) held the face of the Victim E (age 31) who frighting to drink in the side table, without any reason, in drinking; (c) held the face of the Victim F (age 32) who frighting to drink it; and (d) fright the head of the f (age 32) who fright to drink it.

After that, at around 04:00 on the same day, the Defendant committed an injury to the victim F, i.e., a part of the face of the victim F, waiting in order to conduct a food-related investigation, i.e., one time, by considering the face of the victim F, and ii) the victim F, and ii) the victim E, i.e., a part of the face of the victim F, who was waiting in the atmosphere, for about 2 weeks.

2. The Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective assault, deadly weapon, etc.) committed assault against the victim by taking the victim’s head by taking the manufacturer of iron, which is a dangerous object, at the criminal office and office of the Gangnam Police Station around 05:00 on the same day, and by taking the victim’s G (the age of 49) waiting to investigate other cases, and by walking the victim’s body part at one time due to the outbreak.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Inasmuch as an attorney’s defense counsel on whether to grant reduction or exemption under Article 53 or 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation claims for reduction or exemption, it cannot be determined that the Defendant was unable to determine that he/she had a defect in the process of distinguishing things or decision-making, even though he/she was drunk prior to committing an offense, since he/she is found to have been drunk prior

The reason for the aggravation of sentencing is that there is no effort to recover damage for an unfounded crime, victim F(2) and E(6).