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

The defendant is a married couple relationship between the victim C (male, 43 years of age) and November 26, 2012.

At around 18:00 on March 29, 2015, the Defendant, at the house of the Defendant, in the wife population D, was in drinking alcohol, and was in conflict with the victim as a matter of divorce with the victim, and the victim was faced with a disease of her head, which was a dangerous thing by putting the victim's head debt, and her face, etc. several times by taking advantage of beer disease of the victim. In this end, the Defendant sustained the victim's coin and inflicted injury on the victim by taking approximately four weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances favorable to the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months to fifteen years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentences for the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] the group of violent crimes-special injury [the scope of the recommended sentencing] mitigation area (one year and six months to two months), the area of mitigation (one year and six months to six months): A person not subject to the punishment;

3. The decision of sentence shall be made in the same manner as the order within the scope of recommendation, taking into account the fact that the defendant who has made a decision of sentence repents of errors and has agreed smoothly with the victim; and