Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and for four months, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A는 2015. 9. 19. 09:00 경 하남시 D 소재 주차장에서 피해자 E(18 세) 이 자신의 친구인 F을 때렸다는 이유로 주먹으로 피해자의 얼굴 부분을 1회 때리고 발을 걸어 넘어뜨린 후, 넘어진 피해자의 머리 부분을 3회 가량 걷어찼고, 피고인 B은 피고인 A의 폭행을 피하기 위해 자신의 뒤로 오던 피해자를 발로 1회 찼다.

As such, the Defendants jointly inflicted injury on the victim, such as the complete escape of the body, which requires treatment for about 30 days.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. A medical certificate of injury, photographic part of injury, investigation report (additional attachment of a medical certificate of injury) / [Defendant B]

1. Legal statement of E;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to diagnostic certificates, photographs of injury parts, investigation reports (in addition to an injury diagnosis report);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. and the Defendants’ Selection of Punishment: Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (elective of imprisonment)

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

1. Defendant A: Defendant A asserts that there is no supporting victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime that the judgment on the assertion by Defendant B, who is the Defendant, does not constitute a crime.

However, there is a consistent fact from the investigative agency to this court that the defendant gave his own consent once consistently.

was stated at the case site at the time.

G’s statement in the investigative agency also conforms to this.

Joint Defendant A and at the time of the case

H Although the Defendant stated in this court that he did not consent to the victim, it is difficult to believe each of the above statements in light of the fact that A and H made a false statement at an investigative agency, the relationship with the Defendant, the investigation agency, and the attitude of the statement in this court.