However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 17:00 on April 2, 2013, the Defendant collected trees from the “E” office operated by the Defendant located in Sju-gun, Gyeonggi-do, by inserting the trees into the boiler operated by the business partner employee F and the victim G. However, as the Defendant was refused, he saw F to “cexpexpexpe and homicide,” and said f. G, who said f.h., “f.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s. do not f.s.s.s. s.s. s.s. s.s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s.)”

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the second trial records;

1. Each statement of witness G, H and F in the third protocol of trial;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a victim's photograph and injury diagnosis report;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548,

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant asserts that he did not throw a tree at the time of committing the instant crime, and that he did not carry each tree.

In other words, this Court argues that F at the time stated in this Court that F was aware of the fact that the Defendant was imprisoning as stated in the facts constituting a crime, and that F at the time did not go back from lending and borrowing.