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

On January 6, 2020, at around 23:45, the Defendant, at the “D” hall operated by the victim C (the aged 41) of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the ground that the victim, while drinking alcohol together with the victim, was trying to adjust the drinking place, and the Defendant was breading the victim’s face one time from the corridor of the building at the party room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, H and C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs, investigation reports (a detailed statement of processing a 112-reported case), investigation reports (Attachment of photographs of parts of damage), investigation reports (Attachment of a recording file of 112-reported case);

1. Relevant Article 261 of the Criminal Act, Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see the following reasons for sentencing)

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion regarding Article 62-2 of the Social Services Criminal Act, the defense counsel asserts that even if the defendant was suffering from a sentry, he/she did not throw the victim’s right to spawn, and did not fit the victim’s disease.

살피건대, 피해자는 이 사건 싸움 도중 경찰에 신고할 때에도 ‘손님이 병으로 때렸다’라고 진술한 이래 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 피고인이 던진 소주병에 오른 턱 부분을 맞아 멍이 들었다고 진술한 점, 사건 당일 피해자가 휴대폰으로 촬영하여 그 날 경찰에 보낸 사진 등을 보면 오른 턱 부분에 멍 자국이 선명하게 보이는 점, 사건 현장에 있었던 당구장 손님 H은 피고인이 소주병을 던지는 장면을 보았고, 피해자가 기둥에 가려져 있어 소주병이 얼굴에 맞는 것은 보지 못했지만 ‘툭’ 하는 맞는 소리가 났으며 그 소리는 소주병이 피고인과 피해자 사이에 있는 원탁에 떨어지는 소리와는 달랐다고 증언한 점, 다른 목격자인 당구장 손님 G는...