However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) took a bath view that the victim D(55) who was a customer in the instant charging lawsuit in Daegu-gu, Seogu, would have been aware of the payment of gas charging charges; and (b) that “I would like to have the victim d', “I would d? I would d? I would d? I d? I would d? I d? I would d? I would d? I am? I would d? I would d? I would d? I am? I would d? I am the victim's back at the driver's seat; (b) the victim's left face part was flicked one time with the upper part; and (c) the victim's side part was flickbucked once, once, once, and three weeks after the victim was at the left part of the instant charging lawsuit.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Submission of a victim D diagnosis certificate);

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (including the motive and background of the crime, the fact that 500,000 won has been deposited for the victim, etc.);