Defendant

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

However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

On August 3, 2012, around 04:30 on August 3, 2012, the Defendants: (a) before the restaurant of “F” located in Kimhae-si, and (b) the victim G (the age of 49) and Si expenses are disputed; (c) Defendant B was able to have the face of the victim on a drinking occasion; (d) Defendant A was able to have the victim faces the face of the victim on a road; and (e) 3-4 times the victim’s face is 3-4 times in drinking; and (e) Defendant B was able to have the victim’s face on a drinking basis, and Defendant B was able to take about 3-4 times in drinking.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim, such as internal and lower walls, which require approximately eight weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Reporting on the occurrence of a crime of violence, etc.;

1. A written diagnosis of injury (108 pages of investigation records);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing body photographs;

1. Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of a punishment;

1. Defendant A who is subject to suspended execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “Chocks favorable to the following sentencing grounds”);

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant A alone committed an injury in front of the F cafeteria, and the defendant B did not take part in the crime. However, after the completion of the situation in front of the above F cafeteria, the defendant B merely took part in the victim's injury. However, since the defendant B's "I Park" was followed by the victim and the defendant B, the defendant B merely took part in the victim's injury in drinking together from his place to 3 to 4 times. Thus, the defendant B merely took part in the victim's injury on his own.

The purport of the Defendants’ above defense is to recognize each single injury of Defendant A and B.