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.

Around 01:30 on January 1, 2015, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building 926, was under drinking and drinking, on the ground that the victim D (31) and her past education were only an employee of an entertainment shop who is between the Defendant and her child, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim’s left eye on the part of the disease; (b) placed the victim’s snowbrow on one occasion on the part of the Defendant’s smartphone; and (c) placed the victim’s face by hand on the part of the Defendant’s smartphone; and (d) put the victim on approximately four-day therapy of the victim’s face; and (e) placed the victim on the part of the Defendant’s luminous bones and the close flas of the above and urine.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of a defendant in part in the fifth public trial records;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime, and Article 257 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant only caused the victim by hand at several times, and there is no assault against the victim in the cell phone with the victim's cell phone concurrently, and the injury in the judgment is not caused by the assault by the defendant.

2. The statements made by the victim of the judgment are reliable in light of the following: (a) the victim’s attitude and content of testimony from the investigative agency to this court as a whole; and (b) the victim’s testimony is strongly supported by each injury diagnosis.

Meanwhile, although some of the testimonys of the victim are somewhat different from the statement made by the investigative agency, it is acceptable that it is natural in view of the fact that the victim was under the influence of alcohol at the time and the passage of the time. At that time, the defendant was unilaterally assaulted by the victim, and the defendant himself showed that the victim was under the influence of alcohol by considering the face of the victim several times due to a very interest in the victim's face at the time, and there is a little brut that the victim was under the influence of alcohol.

3.2