except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 16:50, on the way in front of the D Chinese house in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., the Defendant: (b) expressed the victim E (the age 49) and the victim of mathato; (c) however, on the ground that the victim refused and expressed his/her desire, he/she taken the face of the victim at several times, taken breath from the face of the victim on the ground that he/she refused and expressed his/her bath, and her breath, carried the breath toward the victim’s body, carried the breath of the victim’s breath, which is an object dangerous to the victim’s body, and put the victim’s breath (a 10ccmm) into a glass view, which is an object dangerous to the victim’s body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Investigation report (to attach written opinions on suspect E);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of standing photographs to a suspect);

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning a crime, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 57 of the Criminal Act including days of pre-trial detention;

1. Suspension of execution is a case involving bodily injury as a dangerous object of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, and the sentence of imprisonment is inevitable, and no damage has been caused, and circumstances such as a majority of violent force have been insignificant.

However, as a crime that occurred in the course of dispute with the victim, the degree of injury is not much severe, and the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that the crime was reflected in the life of confinement for three months.