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

Around 21:50 on March 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) damaged the victim’s part of the ship by hand after having breathed the victim’s breath with the left hand on the ground that the victim’s boomed the victim’s breath to pay the breath fee in cash; and (b) damaged the victim’s entrance to the extent that the victim’s 600,000 won was cut off on one hand.

As a result, the defendant injured the victim about two weeks of treatment, and damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Application of written estimates and written diagnosis of injury to Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 257 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment against the crime, Articles 257 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes (the types of crimes) [the general injury (the scope of recommendations] and imprisonment with prison labor for four to one year and six months (the basic area);

B. Since the crime of injury for which the sentencing guidelines are set and the crime of causing damage to property for which the sentencing guidelines are not set are concurrent, the lower limit of the recommended punishment according to the above sentencing guidelines shall be observed.

2. The Defendant who has been sentenced to sentence has not agreed with the victim until now, and there are unfavorable circumstances such as the fact that he/she has been punished for violent crimes several times.

On the other hand, the defendant led to the confession of each of the crimes in this case and divided his mistake, each of the crimes in this case appears to have been committed contingently, and the damage suffered by the victim seems to have been serious.