However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

On May 7, 2015, Defendants and D jointly acted as Defendant A, who followed the victim’s vision, was able to walk up the victim’s vision on the ground that Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si Office Etel 23:16, the attitude of the victim F(24 years of age) who was frighting from a string tobacco, and taken the toilet into a toilet, was prevented. Defendant A, who was in line with this, was able to walk up the back of the victim’s face by putting the victim’s back back from the back to the bend floor, was able to drink the victim’s face and face, and brought about the victim’s injury to the victim’s face by walking up the victim’s face and face, requiring approximately six weeks of medical treatment, and the closure of the inside and bottom of the floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements (the second court date)

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants and D

1. Statement made by the police of the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 2(1)3 of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

1. Defendants who hold a suspended sentence: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances are considered among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Defendants of the community service order: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of recommendations on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months to not more than one year and June, and the basic area (not less than four months to one year and six months): Basic areas (not more than four months to one year) - Special mitigations: In severe injury (type 1 and four); and

2. The fact that the Defendants were sentenced to a sentence without any particular reason inflicted a serious injury upon the victim who was first viewed as having been sentenced, and that all the Defendants were punished due to violent crimes, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, all the defendants recover and agree on the damage of the victim, and recognize all the crimes in this court.