However, as to the Defendants, it shall be for one year from the date of each judgment.

Defendants are friendly, and victims D(38) are operators of F in the third floor of the E-building at the Government of the Gyeonggi-si, and victims G (24 years old) are employees of the above singing room.

At around 00:00 on May 18, 2014, the Defendants were in dispute with the victims due to the alcohol price at the above singing room. Defendant A, on several occasions with the victim D’s hand floor, was shaking head debt, and the victim G continued to control himself/herself on the ground that he/she did not control himself/herself. Defendant B participated in it and carried his/her body on several occasions with the victim D’s hand, and carried out the body of the victim G on several occasions with his/her hand, and carried out the body of the victim G.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. Each police officer's statement about D and G;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (CCTV investigation);

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint violence) - Selection of imprisonment with prison labor

1. Concurrent Crimes - Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution - The defendants: The reasons for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] - the mitigated area of category 1 (general assault) (one to eight months), the mitigated area of punishment (including serious efforts to recover damage), or where considerable damage was restored [the decision of sentence] - the defendants' actions are not sufficient to be the nature of the crime. However, the defendants' actions are not good. However, the crime of this case occurred by contingent action, and there are reasons for considering the circumstances as the victim's claims for erroneous drinking values were taken into account. The defendants' efforts to recover damage was made by remitting the money that the defendants promised to pay to the victims for recovery of damage.