However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is the representative director of the “C” in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B, and the victim D (the age of 25) is the parent company of the said “C” and the “E” member.

On April 25, 2016, from around 18:00 to 20:00 on the same day, the Defendant, at the restaurant of “G” located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, with seven employees including the victim, had the victim, who was sitting on the side of the Defendant during a meeting, followed the Defendant’s drinking. The victim’s hand spacks the Defendant’s hand, and the victim spacks the Defendant’s hand, and the victim spacks the Defendant’s hand, the Defendant forced the victim to use the victim’s hand from the above to the next day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. The legal statement of the witness H in part;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. The protocol of the police statement with H [this case's indictment is denied because the defendant denies the facts charged, if the victim's statement is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem the credibility of the statement objectively, and there is no other reliable evidence to believe that the victim's statement is objectively consistent and consistent with the facts charged. The witness's statement is not readily denied the credibility of the statement solely on the ground that the witness's statement is consistent with the main part, and there is no somewhat consistency in the statement concerning other minor matters if the witness's statement is consistent. (See Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008, etc.). However, according to each of the above evidence duly adopted by the court, the victim and witness's statement is replaced with the crime of this case in this court and its subsequent situation, and it is consistent with the circumstances that the witness's statement and witness's statement are false.

(3).