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

Around 10:37 August 17, 2018, the Defendant: (a) stated on the front side of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B market head, that “A car is driven by the victim D while driving the car and driving it in front of it, seeing the Defendant’s Ethtobro, fluoring it, and making the Defendant be bad; (b) on the first window of the said car, putting the Defendant’s head into the Defendant’s head part; and (c) stated, “A fluor, fluorh, fluorh, fluorh, fluorh, fluorh, fluorh, fluorh; (c) fluorh, fluorh, fluorh, fluorh; (d) tried to open the front door of the said car; and (d) did not have the victim’s face by putting it into the Defendant’s body and fluening it into the victim’s face.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal accidents (verification of CCTV at a site of accident);

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: The defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was punished several times due to the occurrence of violence inclinations, and the circumstances that the victim was unable to be punished by the victim and the victim seems to suffer a big mental suffering due to the instant case: The above circumstances and the defendant’s age, character and behavior, and circumstances after the instant trial shall be comprehensively taken into account, and the sentencing conditions in the instant trial process shall be determined as ordered.