A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and for eight months, respectively.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On July 18, 2015, around 22:40 on July 18, 2015, the Defendants took a dispute with each other on the grounds that the victims G (50 years old) and the victims H (51 years old) drinking alcohol at the F main points located in Ulsan Jung-gu E, Ulsan-gu, and drinking alcohol on the side table.

The Defendants ran the victims into a nearby I stable, and Defendant A ran the victims, and Defendant A gets off the two descendants of the victim G in order to prevent them by using the steel refrating hole ( approximately 1m in length and approximately 30cm in width), which is a dangerous object installed on the floor drainage channel of the area where the victims were located, and Defendant B got off the victim’s face and body h from the next time, after cutting the victim’s H over the floor, and then cut off the victim’s face and body h with drinking and launchings, and Defendant A she also gets off the two arms of the victim’s H in order to prevent them by using the steel drainage system.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion and carried dangerous things to the victim G for about two weeks, and inflicted an injury on the victim H, such as an open room for the next sale that requires treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of Defendant A’s legal statement (except for the part in which violence was used jointly with Defendant B);

1. The witness H and G respective legal statements;

1. Each police statement made to H and G;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each damaged photograph (No. 3, 5) of evidence;

1. Articles 258-2 (1), 257 (1), and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 (Defendant B) of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( Defendants) of the Suspension of Execution

1. In full view of the following facts as to whether Defendant B’s participation in each of the community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act (the Defendants) was relatively consistent, Defendant B’s statement and the contents of H/G’s statement should be deemed not only to have interfered with Defendant A’s violent exercise but also to have participated in the victims’ exercise of violence.

(1) When a police officer is dispatched.