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

At around 08:00 on December 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 302 of the “D” entertainment drinking club 302, the Defendant, at a time of paking, experienced a large amount of the drinking value by the victim E (the age of 29) who drinked as a customer; (b) the victim, who was suffering from the victim’s back, was a dangerous object on the customer’s face, frighter of the market price; and (c) the victim, who was suffering from the victim’s back, inflicted an injury on the victim, i.e., an open wound of the fingers requiring medical treatment for about 14 days.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous articles and damaged the property owned by the victim and injured the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. E statements;

1. A photo of the victim of his/her bodily injury, a destructive photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Articles 3 (2) and 2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 366 of the Criminal Act; Articles 3 (2) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, or Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment of Violences, etc. which is heavier than the punishment shall be aggravated;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 1, 2007) (see, 201Da1548, Jan. 2, 2006)

1. Although a suspended sentence was imposed on the same military force as the past in the past of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, it did not commit any specific crime during the suspended period, and the defendant should not repeat the suspended sentence against the victim in addition to the reasons for discretionary mitigation.