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

At around 03:10 on August 9, 2015, the Defendants: (a) talked with the Defendants, and the victim F, who was the seat of the Defendants, who had been found in the 'E' located in Ansan-si, Seosan-si; (b) talked with the Defendants, the Defendant F, who was the seat of the Defendants, and had been making drinking; (c) carried the victim’s right-hand son with his hand at one time; (d) the Defendant B, who was flick, was flick with the victim’s chest and side son; and (e) the Defendant B, who was flick with the victim’s chest, was flick with the victim’s chest and flick with the two hand, and caused the victim several times, who was going beyond the victim’s chest, requiring a multiple treatment for about two weeks.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of F, G, H, I, and J;

1. Photographs related to the case;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Investigation report (the counter investigation of the shote) [Defendant B and the defense counsel] [the defendant B and the defendant B did not assault the victim as described in the facts of the crime in the judgment that the injured person was committed, although the injured person was aware of the victim's fighting between the defendant A and the injured person.]

However, the witness I's statement is merely a statement that the victim, witness G's specific and consistent statement, the victim's multiple sacrifies that the victim suffered from the assault of this case is not a part that can occur merely beyond the victim, and that the witness I's statement that the defendant Gap did not have a well memory or that the victim did not have a good memory, and that the witness Eul's statement was not an memory due to the assault of the defendant B. The witness's statement was merely a statement that the victim did not have a just memory. The witness's statement was a statement that the defendant Eul used to drink the victim in drinking again, and that the defendant Eul did not have an assault the victim. In light of the fact that the witness's statement was merely a statement that the victim did not have an assault the victim, it is the crime of the defendant Eul's crime.