Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, each.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant A: (a) around 07:40 on March 4, 2017, at the construction site of “E hotel” in Seopo-si, Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, and (b) on the horse-type F, which divided horses into horse-type: (c) victim B (the remaining, 44 years of age) and B; (d) chemical flick; (b) flicked the safety flick, which is a dangerous object on the floor; and (c) flicked the safety flick, which is one of the dangerous objects on the floor of the victim’s head; and (d) flicked about two weeks on the left side of the victim’s head, the head or other part requiring a medical treatment for about

As a result, Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim using dangerous objects.

Defendant B of “2018 Highest 693” from January 31, 2018 to 22:46 of the same day, on the ground that the injured party H operated by the victim H in the Gu-si from January 31, 2018 to the 19:36 of the same day, he/she shall, in accordance with the principle of the victim’s “Woo 1:0 p.m. 1:0 p. 1:0 p.m. 1:0 p.m., the injured party’s death.”

“Along with the victim’s desire, the victim was holding a 2th page of the right to work, and the victim visited the singing practice room by taking photographs of other customers with mobile phones, etc.

Accordingly, Defendant B interfered with the victim’s singing practice room business by force.

Defendant B, from around 17:50 on April 2, 2018 to 18:15 on the same day, after having heard the phrase “sus” operated by the Victim J in the Council of the victims of the Republic of Korea from around 17:50 on April 2, 2018 to 18:15 of the same day, Defendant B, after drinking alcohol, humfed the phrase “hinging a large amount of drinking” from the damaged person, humfed with the said retailer’s hand, humfed with the chemical bed in front of the said retail store, humfed with the product display stand in hand, humpeded with the goods display stand, and humpedddd with the above retail, and humd with the glass door, humfedd with the victim’s humf, and humd with the victim’s humfing.

Accordingly, Defendant B interfered with the retail store operation of the victimized party by force.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highest 1659"

1. The statement of the defendant A in the first trial record;