Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.

However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 15, 2017, Defendant A: (a) around 05:30 on July 15, 2017, on the ground that the Victim B (37 years) was in the “F cafeteria” located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Victim B was in the victim’s neck, and the victim was in assaulted by the victim B, and the victim was in the victim’s assault for about four weeks, and the victim was in the victim’s injury, such as the left-hand 6, 200 flup dupture dups, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment.

2. Defendant B, at the same time and place as referred to in the preceding paragraph, told the victim A (37 years) of a fighting match between the victim and his/her own other fighting. Defendant B, on the ground that the victim’s face was taken by drinking, was inflicted an injury on the victim and the victim’s bomb, which requires approximately six weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense. Article 257 (1) of the same Act

1. Defendant A who is subject to suspended execution: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Type 1 (Inflicting to the general public) basic area (from April to June), the scope of the recommended punishment is general;

2. According to the above evidence in the decision of sentence, when the Defendants were in drinking alcohol together, including other daily behaviors, the Defendants committed assault by Defendant B, such as her scambling with one another, and Defendant B started assaulting Defendant B with Defendant A as a marier, and Defendant A was sexually abused to the extent that he could have been faced with a large number of skins, and Defendant A was subject to violence to the extent that the police would have been faced with a large number of skins, and during that process, Defendant B was not scambling and was scambling with Defendant B, thereby recognizing the fact that the same injury as the facts charged occurred.

The circumstances and motive of the crime known in the above facts of recognition (Defendant B, who first saw that he was a graduate.)

I, I, however, argue.

Even if this is a minor form of force used during the process of assaulting, Defendant B is first of all.