However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, the defendants are above two years from the date of the final judgment.

Defendants are victims of the company fees such as victims.

On February 4, 2017, the Defendants: (a) around 11:10, the E restaurant located in Silung-si D; (b) the employees of the company and the victim F (the remaining, 32 years of age) among the openings of the meeting, have a dispute with Defendant B; and (c) Defendant A took a bath with Defendant B, which is a dangerous object in the surrounding area, took once the number of backs of the victim; and (b) Defendant B took two times the head of the victim to be a beer, which is a dangerous object in the surrounding area, and suffered injury, such as brain-dead, etc., without any two mains for two weeks of treatment.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to inflict bodily injury on the victim by carrying dangerous objects.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (verification of CCTV on-site);

1. The Defendants of the relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 258-2(1), 257(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Small-scale mitigated Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 1, 2006)

1. The Defendants are subject to suspended execution on the grounds that Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the grounds for the remaining reduction of amount as seen earlier) is more than that of the same Act.