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

At around 23:00 on May 9, 2016, the Defendant, at a restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on May 23:0, 2016, argued the victim E (year 51) and the business issues, brought a shoulderer disease at the site, brought the victim's neck to a single stop, making it possible for the Defendant to carry dangerous articles to provide approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A medical certificate of injury and a letter of complaint;

1. Investigation report (verification of CCTV images at the site of the incident), application of photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (i.e., the favorable circumstances as seen below):

1. As to the assertion of mental disorder as to Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1448, Apr. 1, 2011) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by drinking at the time of committing the instant crime. Thus, according to the records, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but the Defendant

Since it cannot be deemed that there was a state or weak, the above assertion is rejected.

In light of the background and method of each of the crimes in this case committed by the defendant who was injured by a dangerous scambal disease, the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and methods of each of the crimes in this case, even long-term crimes are committed, which are favorable to the fact that the defendant has committed a crime of the same kind of violence: The defendant is seriously against his mistake; the victim has not been seriously injured; the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual agreement with the victim; and the decision of sentencing that there was no same criminal record after 205: the above circumstances and the age, character, career, home environment of the defendant;