A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million, by a fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B, and C, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

On October 3, 2015, at around 03:05, the Defendants jointly and severally held in front of the E cafeteria located in Chuncheon City, the victim F (24 years old), G (24 years old), and trial expenses, and Defendant A brought about disputes with the victim F (24 years old). Defendant A was able to know about the victim F’s face face of the victim F at one time due to drinking, and Defendant B and C was able to take part in the victim F’s head head, and Defendant B and C was able to take part in the victim G, and Defendant A continued to take part in the victim G at one time with the victim G, and the victim F was able to know about the period of treatment, such as the victim’s spathy (or spathy) and the victim’s spathy (or spathy in the left part of the case requiring a two-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each written diagnosis and verification of hospitalization;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on-site CCTV inquiries and video analysis);

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act for the increase of concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the attraction of a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were jointly committed by the Defendants, and injury was inflicted upon the victims, and Defendant A had the same criminal records, and the Defendants did not make any effort to recover damage, etc., so that the conditions for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendants and the degree of injury suffered by the victims cannot be deemed significantly significant. Defendant B and C did not have the same criminal records, taking into account the conditions for sentencing favorable to the Defendants, and all other conditions for sentencing, such as the age, sexual conduct, and circumstances after the crime, etc., as stated in the order.