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

However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date of the final judgment of this case, the Defendants are above.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 22:00 on September 20, 2012, Defendant A collected food knife (21cc in total length, 17cc in knife length) which was a deadly weapon in the Washington, and carried out a dispute with each other on the ground that the victim B (22 years of age) and the Defendant drinking alcohol was frighted by drinking. Defendant A collected a food knife (17cm in length, knife length, 17cc in knife) from around 22:0, the part of the victim’s left knife part of the part of the part of the knife of the victim’s knife, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. The Defendant 2 collected food knife (21cm in total length, 17cm in knife) that is a deadly weapon, while disputing the Victim A (23 years of age) as set forth in the above 1.1., and put the victim’s knife and the part of the victim’s knife and the part of the victim’s knife in need of two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the first trial records;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on the spot and seized articles, accompanying photographs of each suspect's upper part of the body), investigation reports (Attachment of medical certificates of the suspect);

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do139, Jan. 1, 201>

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for a suspended sentence;

1. Defendant A: The Defendants and defense counsel asserted that the Defendants were in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

According to the defendants' respective legal statements and the statements of each police interrogation protocol, it is recognized that the defendants drinks more than the main amount at the time of the crime, but it does not seem to have reached the state of mental and physical disability, so the above assertion is rejected.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.