However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On August 29, 2014, around 16:57, the Defendant assaulted the victim, including the victim E (n, 48 years of age) who was a female living together with the F and inns, on the ground that the victim E (n, female, 48 years of age) was in common with the F and inns, who was a dangerous object at the same time, on the victim’s face.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as the above Paragraph 1, destroyed the market value of Samsung Gallon owned by the Victim F (57 Doe) on the same ground as above, by cutting off the cell phone of the amount equivalent to KRW 970,000,000, and destroying the liquidness by cutting off the cell phone on the wall.

3. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 17:10, the victim F (57 years of age) who was living together with the Defendant, expressed the victim EXE on the ground that the Defendant was living together with the victim, and expressed the victim EXE on the ground that he was living together with the victim, and expressed the victim EXE on the hand floor once at one time and several times of the victim’s face with drinking, the Defendant saw the victim to have approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Photographs of the victim;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of assault to carry dangerous articles), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of bodily injury) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution has the record of having been punished several times for the same crime, and that the defendant committed a subsequent crime even after having been prosecuted after having been prosecuted for the investigation of the preceding crime, although the criminal liability of the defendant is not minor, the defendant reflects his/her criminal act, the defendant committed an agreement with the victim E, and reached an agreement with the victim F, and the money for some crimes has been deposited.