However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive against the Defendants.

Defendant

A is a person who resides in No. 605 of Ulsannam-gu E apartment, and the defendant B is a person who resides in the same apartment 604.

1. On May 23, 2013, at around 08:25, Defendant A 2013, around the entrance of the above apartment building 604, the victim B (the age of 74) was able to report the Defendant during the opening of the entrance to the hacker, and she saw the victim’s face back by cutting off the sloter he reported. The victim’s hacker, which is a dangerous object used by the victim, was hacking the victim’s hacker and buckbucker, was hicking the victim’s head, and the victim’s left hand hacks the victim’s head, as it is a dangerous object in the place.

As a result, the defendant assaulted the victim with dangerous objects, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the first balance of the left 28 days of treatment.

2. The Defendant B, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) above, suffered bodily injury, such as the victim A (the age of 47) and the hacker, which is a dangerous object possessed by the Defendant during the process of punishing the victim, one time, and the part of the victim’s hacker, which is a dangerous object in a corridor, and the victim, was tightly sealed with the victim for about 14 days, and suffered bodily injury, such as the extension of the hacker, which requires treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each injury diagnosis letter (Evidence Nos. 6,9 of evidence list);

1. A report on investigation and a photograph attached thereto (Evidence No. 7,8);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each photograph (Evidence Nos 1 through 3) of the evidence list;

1. The Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants with discretionary mitigation: The Defendants under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Code are in profoundly against this law; the Defendants are each perpetrator and are the victims at the same time.