Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

However, it is against the Defendants for three years from the date of the conclusion of the judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On July 4, 2015, at around 22:40, the Defendants drink the alcohol together with “E” located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 2, and Defendant A was under the influence of alcohol and carried out the above house with Defendant B’s large voice, leaving Defendant B with other customers, and the victim F (the age of 42, South) who was under the influence of Defendant B was frighted by the Defendant, was frighting the Defendants, and Defendant A collected beer disease, which is a dangerous object in the beer stay door of the above head of the victim, and laid the victim’s face and face with the victim’s face with the direction of gathering the beer in the above beer beer in the direction of gathering the beer in the beer, and Defendant B did not tear the victim’s face when the victim’s body and the victim’s face were taken out.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to do harm to the victim F by using beer disease, which is a dangerous thing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. On-site photographs;

1. A certified copy of medical records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on standing photographs;

1. The Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 257 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do148, Apr. 1, 201

1. Defendants in a suspended sentence: The Defendants’ attitude to commit the instant crime is very dangerous, and the degree of injury suffered by the victim cannot be deemed to be mitigated for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, the defendants appear to have reached the crime of this case by contingency, the mistake is recognized, and the defendants do not want the punishment of the defendants by mutual consent with the victims.