1. In around 03:45 on May 15, 2016, the Defendant, along with C, D, E, F, and G, suffered bodily injury from the victim’s head head with a concrete brick that is a dangerous object, and the Defendant, E, and C, together with the victim’s head, suffered bodily injury, such as a closed bridge, which requires the victim’s treatment for about five weeks.

2. No foreigner violating the Immigration Control Act shall sojourn in the Republic of Korea after he/she exceeds the relevant status of sojourn or the period of sojourn;

On November 9, 201, 201, the Defendant entered the Busan Sincheon port, and received conditional landing permission from immigration control officials (from outside the wharf, the effective period: November 24, 2011).

However, around November 21, 201, the Defendant did not obtain the status of stay in the manner of maintaining the Hague in the sea from the above vessel at night and stayed in the Republic of Korea, such as Kimhae-si, Yangsan-si, Busan-si, etc. from that time until June 28, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant stayed in Korea without status of stay.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspects of public prosecution against C, D, and E;

1. Statement statement made to K by the police;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Court rulings;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on accusation at a request of an investigative agency;

1. Article 258-2 (1), Article 257 (1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (special injuries) concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 94 subparagraph 7 and 17 (1) of the Immigration Control Act (the violation of the Immigration Control Act, and the choice of imprisonment);

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of each of the above crimes) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes is that the defendant has a depth of and reflects his mistake, and is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, however, it is.