A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.

The costs of lawsuit are jointly and severally assessed against the Defendants.

Defendant

B around 23:00 on January 27, 2016, the victim F (30 years of age) was gambling in the second floor E office of the D Building in Namyang-si, Namyang-si. Around 23:00, it was time for the victim to report that the victim F (30 years of age) was gambling, and the victim was hambling in the middle of the victim's bomb, and the victim's face was gambling and drinking.

Defendant

A intending to speak the said fighting, who is able to hear the abusive and reflect the victim's desire, and is in combination with it, the victim's face may be taken in drinking, and the victim's hair and dysium have been cut off by placing the victim's fingers, which are dangerous objects of a single material at the same time, and the victim's fingers, and the defendant B continued to take part in the victim's face.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to carry dangerous goods and carried about about 5 weeks of treatment to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each legal statement of a witness G, H, I, J, K, and L;

1. Some statements made by each police suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants (including the part of the statement: Provided, That the part of the statement made by Defendant B among the interrogation protocol to be made by the police officers against Defendant A on February 18, 2016, No. 16, No. 16, the list of evidence

1. Statement of each police statement concerning J and L;

1. The statement of each police officer's statement of K, I, G, and H in part;

1. The “the part of the statement made by the Defendant B” among the written diagnosis of injury (Evidence No. 2), the victim’s assault pictures, the records of seizure and the list of seizure, the investigation report (the submission of the victim’s voice files), and the protocol of interrogation of the suspect who is the police officer against the Defendant A on February 18, 2016, is not indicated in the protocol because the notification of the right to refuse to make a statement against the Defendant B was not stated. Therefore, notwithstanding the consent of Defendant B, the above Defendant did not have the right to refuse to make a statement.