However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

B On April 11, 2014, the Daegu District Court sentenced one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and two years of suspended execution, which became final and conclusive on April 19, 2014.

At around 06:00 on July 9, 2010, the Defendants, along with C, went through the street in front of the “E” agent in Busan Metropolitan City D, and come from the vehicle in which snow with the victim F (27 years of age) who was located there was a vision for snowing. Defendant A, by hand, dump the victim’s breath, dump, ebbbbing the victim’s breath, and the Defendants dump and body dumped with C. The Defendants dumped the victim’s face and body flabing together with C.

As a result, the Defendants jointly with C put about approximately three weeks of medical treatment to the victim, such as the softenment of the bones and open wound.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Previous convictions: Documents printed out of the ICS case summary agreement auxiliary to the agreement, and the application of statutes of the judgment (Tgugu District Court Decision 2014No662);

1. The Defendants: 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 choice of a sentence

1. Defendant B who handles concurrent crimes: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants on probation, order to attend a lecture and order to provide community service order: Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., even though the Defendants had committed violent crimes, and even if they again committed the instant crime, the Defendants were not subject to punishment. However, the Defendants’ punishment was too unreasonable and contradictory to commit the instant crime. However, the Defendants agreed with the victims and the victims. In the case of Defendant B, equity in the case of judgment at the same time with latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and other motive, process, means and method of the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the ages and methods of the Defendants indicated in the instant arguments.