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.

On August 15, 2018, at a “D” restaurant located in Namwon-si, Namwon-si, Seoul around 22:30 on August 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) while drinking alcohol together with the victim E (35 years of age) and F, the Defendant: (b) expressed the victim’s desire to see that the victim would not fright his her her ties to his her ties during the school period; and (c) caused the dispute; and (d) said, the Defendant flicked the victim’s crypt, which is a dangerous thing on the table, and caused the victim’s injury, such as an open crypt, which requires the victim’s treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the site and photographs of damaged parts;

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 (Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the conditions of sentencing favorable to the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following factors are repeated for sentencing on the grounds of sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Six months to five years; and

2. Reduction elements of types 1 (Special Bodily Inflicting Persons) (Special Sentencing Persons): Reduction element of punishment (Determination of the sphere of recommendation) in the area of reduction [Scope of recommendation] in the area of reduction of punishment [Scope of recommendation] in the area of reduction of punishment, four months to one year.

3. The crime of this case by which the sentence of sentence is rendered is disadvantageous to the Defendant, as the Defendant took advantage of the victim’s face face with glass cup, and the risk of the act itself is very high, and the degree of damage suffered is not insignificant.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects the defendant, there is no particular criminal record other than a fine for one time, and there is no record of the same kind of crime, and the fact that the victim does not want the punishment by agreement with the victim is considered as favorable to the defendant, and the arguments in this case are shown.