A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

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

1. On April 28, 2017, Defendant A: (a) around 02:00, at the main point of “E” located in Daejeon Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) the victim B ( South and 44 years old) who was in front of the Kabter for calculation, took a bath without any justifiable reason while drunking him; (c) the victim gets off the bath, dump, which was a dangerous object on the table table, and (d) the victim dump caused a defect in the lab; and (e) the victim dump, she dumpeded the victim’s left eye, thereby making it difficult to identify the number of days of treatment for the victim.

2. Defendant B, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in paragraph 1, as described in paragraph 1, the victim A (the remaining and the age of 46) sought to remove the Defendant’s face with a beer’s disease, and collected beer’s disease, which is a dangerous object on the table. As such, the victim’s head was removed, and the victim’s head was removed, and the victim’s number of days of treatment could not be known.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A report on the occurrence of an injury;

1. Report on investigation - photographs of damage;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (related to failure to attach a medical certificate);

1. The Defendants of the relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Each of the Defendants [Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act]

1. Defendant B who is to be mitigated: Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants on probation: Each of the Defendants [Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act] committed the instant crime, each of the Defendants’ reasons for sentencing is against and against each of the instant crimes; Defendant A appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency under influence of alcohol; Defendant B appears to have committed the instant crime only after receiving Defendant A’s preemptive attack; Defendant B appears to have committed the instant crime; each victim’s injury caused by the instant crime appears not to be severe; in the instant crime, each of the instant crimes constitutes injury to both parties; and the Defendants agreed to each of the instant crimes and did not want punishment against the other; in light of the circumstances favorable to the relevant Defendants, the risk of the instant crime is considered.