Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2016, around 00:40 on December 2, 2016, the Defendants boarded into E-si operated by the victim D (40 taxes) on the front of the new fest station in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant A moved to the front line of the said f-si, and Defendant B moved to the new f-dong station, which is for the lower seat.

Defendant

B During the above movement, the victim took a bath to the victim, and the victim gets her head on his hand due to the her resistance, and the defendant A took her head on one occasion by drinking the victim's chest, and the victim immediately set the above taxi, and the victim took her head head on her hand, thereby causing injury to the victim at approximately three weeks left-hand her head on the left-hand side, which requires approximately three weeks medical treatment.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to inflict bodily injury on the victim in taxi operation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Part of the prosecution's examination protocol against the Defendants (including the whole part of interrogation)

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each written petition filed by D;

1. The medical certificate [the Defendants and the defense counsel] was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the commission of the instant crime, and the Defendants did not have or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

The argument is asserted.

In light of the aforementioned evidence, even though the Defendants were aware of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of the details and content of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the horses and attitudes of the Defendants, etc., it does not appear that the Defendants did not have reached a state where they did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, the above argument by the Defendants and defense counsel cannot be accepted. The above argument by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

1. The Defendants of the relevant Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes: The former part of Article 5-10 (2) and Articles 5-1 and 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

1. Small-scale mitigated Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following grounds for sentencing).