On March 26, 2014, at around 22:50, the Defendants suffered from a defect in the provisions of the victim E (the 48 years old) and the victim F (the 48 years old) while they worked for dactylology in the parking lot located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

이에 피고인 A은 피해자 F과 실랑이를 하던 중, 주먹으로 위 피해자의 얼굴을 때려 넘어뜨리고, 피고인 B은 이에 가세하여 쓰러진 위 피해자의 얼굴과 몸을 발로 걷어찼다.

In addition, Defendant B did not know that the victim E was flick and flicked.

As a result, the Defendants jointly committed the injury to the victim F of the combined laverization, such as the lavers requiring approximately seven weeks of medical treatment, and the lavers requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment to the victim E respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s statement in the second trial record;

1. Defendant A's statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Examination protocol of Defendant B by the prosecution (including each of the statements of Defendant A, F, E, and G)

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of each injury diagnosis letter to F and E;

1. Relevant Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the defendants who choose to commit a crime;

1. Defendants who are subject to aggravated concurrent crimes: The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code (the scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines) [the grounds for sentencing] (the scope of recommendations made in the sentencing guidelines] general injury (six to two years): The circumstances favorable to the aggravated injury (the decision of sentence): all the Defendants appear to have a mistake in court and repent: the defendants appear to have a mistake in court; as a contingent crime, the victim F has an aspect of causing the initial dispute; the Defendant has no same criminal record; Defendant B has several identical criminal records; Defendant A had a part of the victim F's face; Defendant A had a part of the victim F's face taken first, and Defendant B used it again.