Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, each of the above punishments shall be executed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

1. On July 23, 2015, Defendant A, at around 23:00, performed drinking together with the Victim B (48 cm) at the Defendant’s house located in Jinanananando-gun, Jinando-gun, the Defendant: (a) viewed the victim’s left side and left part of the victim’s knife as excessive (12.5 cm in the knife length of the knife) that is a dangerous object in the front side of the knife while drinking together with the victim B (48 cm); and (b) put the victim’s back an open upper part of the knife wall that was not treated to the victim once.

2. Defendant B’s above date, at the above time, and at the above place, deducted the above transition, which is a dangerous object from the victim A (40 snife) test, from the knife, thereby causing damage to the victim’s fnife and other fnife, the number of days of treatment, the fnife and other fnife parts, and the fnife part above the fnife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the defendant A in the first trial record;

1. A legal statement of a witness;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police officer;

1. Protocol and list of police seizure;

1. On-site photographs, opinions, medical certificates, and analysis results of analysis in the form of the blood trace of the injury inflicted by the Jinanan Police Station;

1. Application of present Acts and subordinate statutes under subparagraph 1 of this Article;

1. Articles 258-2 and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (in the case of Defendant A, his mistake is divided, and in the case of Defendant B, he appears to have inflicted an injury on A in the process of responding to the first attack, in the process of responding to the attack, and in the case of Defendant B, the Defendants committed the instant crime in whole, the Defendants committed the instant crime contingently, the Defendants agreed to the mutual agreement, and the Defendants did not have any history of having been sentenced to the punishment heavier than that of the same kind of crime or fine)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for the suspension of execution (the same reason shall be repeatedly considered);

1. Defendant A: Determination on the Defendant B’s assertion under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant did not have the victim as the above excessive road.

The argument is asserted.

Judgment

Collegiate

Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.