On April 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 20:30 on April 10, 2015, on the back side of the Dahop house located in Busan, the Defendant: (b) caused the victim E (39 years of age) to brea the boom of the victim E; (c) caused the boom of the victim E; (d) caused the boom of the breath; and (e) caused the Defendant’s buck with the 500c beer c beer with a thing at risk of the head of the victim F (38 years of age) when the buck of the Defendant met; and (e) prevented the victim F from breaking the face of the victim on about 4 weeks back to the left side of the complete dhof house, which requires four weeks of treatment; and (e) provided the victim F’s flaf with the remaining side of the 4 week flaf, which requires a beer for beer in the process of the head of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. It is recognized that the defendant's reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that he/she repents his/her mistake.

However, even though the defendant committed the crime of this case again even if he had been tried for the same kind of crime, the degree of damage suffered by the victims is not easy, it is still without any repayment or agreement, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined like the order.