Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive with respect to Defendant B and C.

Punishment of the crime

On May 8, 2014, at around 23:00, the Defendants came to contact in front of GcafeteriaF located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, with the Defendant’s women-friendly H was exposed to the victim I (the age of 17) and arrived at the same place, and Defendant A her “drawed at the time” at the time, and the Defendant A her “drawed.” The Defendant her left side of the victim’s hand was 7 times.

Defendant C, Defendant B, who was next to this, frightened the victim’s face in combination with Defendant A and frighted to drink the victim’s face. Defendant A and Defendant B set up the victim’s body by putting the victim, and then cut off the victim’s body. Defendant C frighted the victim’s left side to occur on one occasion in drinking. Defendant C frighted the victim’s body and frighted down the victim’s body.

As a result, the Defendants jointly put the victim with acute cerebral cerebralopia which requires approximately six weeks of treatment, and led to the blood cerebral cerebralopia.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. The defendant B and C's partial statement

1. A witness J or I's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement to H and K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

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

1. Defendant B and C: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B and C of the community service order: The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] general injury [the scope of general injury] [6-2 years] and (6-2 years] and Defendant B denied the crime; however, Defendant B denied the crime; Defendant B’s statement of the witness J, which corresponds to the facts charged, is specific and consistent; Defendant B, as a male-child district of H, was contacted with H and went to the scene of this case, can fully recognize the facts charged.

Other Defendants and H’s statements are the Defendant.