However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

On September 20, 2014, at around 12:05, the Defendants conspired to purchase tobacco at the “E convenience store” located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, and caused F-gu dispute with F-gu employees, thereby misunderstanding that F-B would have attempted to make an account first from the victim G (the age of 33) who was waiting for the calculation of drinking water, and Defendant A received the face of the victim by head, Defendant B was faced with the victim’s face, and Defendant B continued to go beyond the victim’s face and body with the victim’s face and body as a convenience store. The Defendants continued to inflict an injury on the victim, i.e., taking about four weeks back the right side of the victim’s face and body as a convenience store.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A written statement;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on closures;

1. The Defendants: Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of imprisonment with prison labor, and the selection of a criminal sentence

1. Defendants in the suspended sentence: Defendant A [the scope of recommending sentence] for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant A [the scope of recommending sentence] for the purpose of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant B [the scope of recommending sentence] for Defendant B [the scope of recommending sentence] who is not subject to general injury] under category 1 (general injury) and the basic area (4-1 year and 6 months) [the scope of recommending sentence] under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant A made a criminal agreement with the victim; Defendant A was the first offender; Defendant B was the front offender; Defendant B was the front offender; Defendant B was the front offender; Defendants’ age and experience of the Defendants; and all circumstances revealed in arguments such as family relations.