However, as to the Defendants for three years from the date of the final judgment of this case, the Defendants are above.

1. On March 14, 2013, Defendant A, around 22:20 on the ground that the victim B (the age of 46) was fluent and fluored before Sinh City, he was fluored, and was fluored by the victim B’s face and chest, and was fluor, which is a dangerous object, and was fluored by the victim’s head and was inflicted an injury on the number of days of treatment.

2. Defendant B brought an dispute as referred to in paragraph (1) at the date, time, and place of the above paragraph (1) and took part in the face of the victim A(the age of 49) to drink, and was charged with an injury on the number of days of treatment with bricks, which are dangerous objects.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each written statement prepared A and B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as site and suspect photographs;

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

2. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the agreement of the Defendants);

3. The Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1148, Apr. 1, 201)

4. Defendants of orders to provide community service and attend lectures: Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 (1) of the Act on Probation, etc.