However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

1. On December 31, 2017, Defendant A, at around 11:30 on December 31, 2017, while drinking alcohol together with Victim B (51) in the Defendant’s residence located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and the third floor, Defendant A brought an injury to the victim’s head one time due to a small-scale illness, which is a dangerous thing for the Defendant to go through the Defendant’s horse, and the victim’s face can be taken over by drinking.

2. Defendant B, at the same time, at the same time and place as above paragraph 1, threatened with the knife, which is a deadly weapon against the assault of the victim A (51). Defendant B, upon drinking the victim’s face, suffered an injury to the victim due to the left eye of the snow, hand, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. A report on investigation (an investigation conducted against the other party of a harvested person);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each injury photograph;

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

1. Defendants to be mitigated in amount: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following provisions shall be considered as being more favorable to the reasons for sentencing);

1. Defendants who observe the protection and observation: The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act are as follows; the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the various sentencing factors as shown in the arguments in this case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered and determined as ordered.

Although there are many criminal records of violence against the Defendants, the Defendants recognized the instant crime and divided their mistakes, the Defendants appear to have committed the instant crime in a contingent manner in the course of dispute under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendants agreed to commit the instant crime smoothly after the instant case.