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 between the victim C (n, 42 years of age) and the beauty art education institute.

On July 4, 2015, the Defendant called the victim's cell phone secret internship in order to view the victim's cell phone while drinking alcohol with the victim at the victim's dwelling located in Daejeon Daejeon-gu D or 204 around July 4, 2015.

As a result of the request, the victim's timber was cut up to the floor by pushing the victim's timber, and the victim's necked above the part of the victim's neck, and the glass view was left above the part of the damaged person's neck, and the victim's 21-day treatment was required for approximately 21 days.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by C by the witness in the second public trial protocol;

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of C by the prosecution;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, treatment records, and medical certificates of injury;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding the order to provide community service and attend lectures, arguing that the defendant did not have dancing with the victim's neck, and the victim's neck was flick at hand.

However, the Defendant also stated to the effect that he was frightened, and that the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted earlier, namely, the victim stated to the effect that he was consistently “frightened on the upper part of the glass fright,” and that “the victim could have known that he was frighten due to the promotion of the upper part of the wood fright” in this court, and that the victim’s photograph and treatment record is considered in light of the background of the instant crime, the victim’s photograph and the upper part of the upper part of the fright, and the content of the record.