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

1. The Defendant: (a) around 20:40 on March 5, 2013, the Defendant: (b) placed the victim’s 2nd E-2nd floor of Won-si on the ground that the victim, who was her aged, was her old and her old, was her old and frighter in the victim’s face at the home of the victim B (37 years of age) without her brush; (c) brought about approximately 10cm in the victim’s face to the victim’s face; and (d) placed the victim, who was displayed on the left side of the victim’s face in the treatment days, caused the victim’s creative disorder of about 10cm in the face of the treatment days and the length.

2. On March 5, 2013, at around 21:30 on March 5, 2013, Defendant B, at the Defendant’s residence as indicated in paragraph (1), brought about the humped fish, which is a dangerous object from the victim A (the age of 40) and brought about the victim’s face and head head at two times, and brought the victim’s head and head head in the non-number of treatment days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. An investigation report (to hear statements from the Fphone);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

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

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do148, Apr. 2, 2011);

1. Defendants of a suspended sentence: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The two-mentioned normal consideration); and