However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Around May 8, 2020, at the C cafeteria located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on May 21:13, 2020, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together with the victim D (son, 41 years of age) who is the Defendant’s fright, had a dispute over the Defendant’s mother while drinking alcohol. The Defendant, at the C cafeteria located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, he was able to have the part of the Defendant’s left eyebrows (the thickness of 1cm, 15cm in diameter, 15cm in diameter, and Do self material) cut the victim’s face.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous things and laid the victim with the inside of the days of treatment.

2. On the same date and time as above, the Defendant damaged the 3 cafeteria operated by the victim E by putting the table in knife, thereby damaging 451,50 won in total as the market value of the victim owned by 451,50 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to D or F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to take photographs of damaged parts of the victim's wife, and on-site property;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) (the point of special injury) of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to property and the choice of imprisonment) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is the fact that the defendant was punished by a fine several times of violence, and that this case is disadvantageous to the fact that the defendant, who is the husband of a female, was frightened as a matter of gathering the mother between the victim and the victim who is the husband of the female, and inflicted an injury upon the victim, and that it is not good that the crime was committed by destroying the restaurant table by cutting down the restaurant table a blick.

However, the defendant was prosecuted by the fact that he denies the crime in the investigative agency, but all the time of the crime and reflects it in this court.