Defendant

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.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A and B are co-friendly with G, each of which is the shop of F's coffee shop located in the first floor of the E Hospital located in the E Hospital located in the e.g., the shop of F's coffee shop.

At around 16:30 on March 16, 2013, the Defendants discovered that there was a dispute between G and the victim H (22 years of age) who is female employees of the said coffee shop, and Defendant B was able to see the victim’s head and tamper with the floor of hand, Defendant A was able to fleep the head of the victim’s head and tamper, Defendant A was fleeped with the head of the victim’s head and tamper, and Defendant A continued to have the kick face of the cigarette.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted injury on the victims, such as cerebral rupture, requiring medical treatment for about four weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CDs, such as a written injury diagnosis and video recording images on the first floor of the E hospital;

1. Relevant Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for a suspended sentence (the following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The Defendants and defense counsel on the assertion of Defendants and defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order asserts that Defendant A only met the dispute between Defendant B and the victim, and did not assault the victim as shown in the facts charged, and Defendant B only did not do the victim's face once, but did not do the victim's assault like the facts charged, and there was no causal link between Defendant B's act and the victim's injury.

However, in full view of the following circumstances that are duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, I’s statements made by investigative agencies and this court correspond to the statements made by the victim, and the first floor of the E Hospital, the Defendants assaulted the victim as stated in the facts charged, and the victim is weak, in view of the fact that I’s statements made by investigative agencies and this court coincide with the victim’s statements.