A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 3, 2014, the Defendants: (a) around 04:45 on May 3, 2014, around 04:45, on the grounds that the victim F (the age of 41) who was disputing the owner of the above main place of business and the victim F (the age of 41) was a trial fee against the Defendants, Defendant A had the face of the victim several times by drinking; (b) Defendant B had the face of the victim several times by drinking; (c) Defendant B had the face of the victim in excess of 6 weeks of treatment; and (d) had the face of the victim, she had the face of the victim, and had the face of the victim in excess of 6 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Investigation report (Enormist oral statement in the workplace);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Relevant Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment, and the selection of a criminal sentence

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account that the Defendants reflect and agreed with the victims);

1. On May 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 05:00 on May 3, 2014, at the top of the trade name, “I” in “I” in “I” located at H, the Defendant, along with the police, was identified as the perpetrator from the victim F, who found the perpetrator of the injury case as indicated in the judgment, and assaulted the victim’s face at one time.

2. We examine the judgment. The case is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, it is recognized that the victim expressed that he/she does not want the punishment of the defendant to this court on October 1, 2014, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act and is so decided as per Disposition.