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 23:40 on November 23, 2020, the Defendant got the victim’s head on the glass cup, which is a dangerous article on the Gap's table, and the Defendant got the victim’s head. On the other hand, the Defendant got the victim’s head. The Defendant got the victim’s head. The Defendant got the victim’s head.

As a result, the defendant carried dangerous things with the victim and inflicted an injury upon the victim, which requires two weeks of treatment, such as an open room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police officer regarding D (including a medical certificate attached thereto);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration favorable circumstances);

1. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] : Special injury [Class 1] Special Bodily Injury (Special Bodily Inflicting Person] - mitigated element: In the area of mitigation [including a serious effort to recover damage] / [the scope of the recommended area and the recommended sentence] mitigation range, four months to one year [the scope of the recommended sentence revised according to the applicable sentence] - six months to one year (the minimum limit of the applicable sentence under the law] [the general person] mitigation element: In the case of committing a dangerous object carrying a dangerous object: In the case of carrying the dangerous object: The general pride cause - the decision that there is no criminal conviction above the suspension of execution, the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine five times for the same kind of crime (the above ruling that there is no previous conviction) and the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine (the defendant's age exceeding the reasonable period of punishment)], the defendant's family relation has not been punished (the last day after the lapse of his/her age).