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

The Defendant, at around 01:25 on November 15, 2020, “E” as stated in the written indictment of the victim D, who is a workplace club fee, is correct ex officio, by virtue of the obvious clerical error in D”.

(Y, 26 years old) During drinking together with the victim, the victim scam and boomed the part of the victim's head, which is a dangerous object on the table, on the ground that the victim scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam, which require approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on internal investigation (attaching photographs of the scene and damaged parts);

1. On-site photographs;

1. A damaged photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

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 to mitigate small amount;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following factors favorable to the sentencing)

1. Scope of punishment by law: Six months to five years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [type 1] Special injury (including special injury to a person subject to sentencing] and special injury [including the scope of the recommended punishment], mitigation area, four months to one year [the scope of the recommended punishment corrected according to the applicable sentencing guidelines], six months to one year (the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is applicable in cases where the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range, and thus the applicable sentencing range of the law is applicable).

3. Prosecutor's opinion: Eight months of imprisonment;

4. The Defendant, who was sentenced to sentence, sustained a bodily injury due to an empty beer’s disease requiring approximately two weeks of treatment, when the victim’s head was faced with the disease.

It is likely that a large damage will be caused by the head of the fluence.