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

However, the defendants are individually from the date of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants, around 00:30 on August 29, 2013, at G main points of the E 2nd floor E (the age of 55) operation, on the ground that the above victim’s musicians do not have interest. Defendant A collected the victim’s wireless microphones, which are dangerous objects, and then sprinked about seven times the victim’s face with drinking, sprinking the flab with hand, sping the victim’s timber, sprinking the victim’s timber, sponsing the victim’s side, sponsing the victim’s side flab and the parts of the victim’s side flab, and Defendant B tried to walk the victim’s face flab with the victim’s face flab, walking the victim’s body flab with the victim’s body flab, kneing the victim’s face with the victim’s face flab and the victim’s face flab with the victim’s face f.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The prosecutor's office and the police's statement concerning the F;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Side photographs of the assault;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CCTV image storage and mobile disks;

1. The Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of inflicting bodily injury on a dangerous object);

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant A of the community service order: The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the victim, who is the main text of the judgment, assaults the victim without the intention of his or her will, did not capture the victim with the intent of his or her will, or did not gather the micros that are dangerous objects, and even though the victim did not have the state of his or her intention, the investigation agency denied the crime and did not appear to have the attitude of reflect, thereby allowing the victim to undergo a re-examination.