On November 27, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced one year to a suspended sentence of three years on December 5, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 5, 2014. At around 01:00 on December 7, 2016, the Defendant got out of the main point on the ground that he got out of the c'C of the third floor of the Busan Maritime Transport Daegu B building, Busan, on the ground that he was able to take the time of sobriated by the former victim D(42 years old), and again went out of the main point on the ground that he was able to take the time of sobriated and drinking, the Defendant got out of the main place on the back of the 71-day face of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. A medical certificate of each injury, a victim's photograph, or a CCTV video CD;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: The application of the law of this case is guilty in full view of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., inquiries about criminal history, case search [the defendant does not have any fact of causing serious injury to the victim at the time.] The following facts are acknowledged: ① the statement of witness is specific and natural; ② the contents of CCTV images and diagnosis correspond to the statement of witness and the victim; ③ the fact of causing bodily injury by assaulting the victim regardless of seriousness of the defendant.]

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act for the crime of this case is that the crime of this case committed a serious injury, such as the victim’s face, etc., when drinking and salkeing it, is not good to commit the crime. The crime of this case is deemed to have suffered a large mental and physical pain; the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim; the damage was not recovered; the defendant's failure to recover; the defendant's act of denying the charge of this case is insufficient to reflect seriously while denying the charge.