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

On July 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 00:40 on July 20, 2013, the Defendant: (b) from the Esing 4-story’s apartment corridor run by the victim D (the age of 42); (c) on the ground that the victim was aware of the victim; (d) on the ground that the victim was playing together from the above singing room to the early early; (e) on the ground that the victim was aware of the victim; (e) on the part of the victim’s face, the Defendant was able to take back the victim’s face with the victim, etc.; and (e) on the other hand, the Defendant continued to set up one time the part of the victim’s Y, which is a dangerous object located in the front corridor of the elevator.

As a result, the Defendant had been on the shores in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to injury diagnosis certificates and photographs;

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. The sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act is led to the confession of the crime, the fact that there exists a record of punishment for the same kind of crime as the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has agreed with the victim, and all other factors of sentencing such as the age, character and conduct