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

On June 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 02:05, on the ground that the victim D (54 years old) was not prompt in the toilets in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, the Defendant opened a toilet door in which the victim reported the side. (b) On the one hand, the Defendant sent the victim’s left side in the toilet in the toilet of the urier, and (c) on the other hand the victim’s left side in drinking, and (d) assaulted the victim at one time the victim’s left face in drinking in the toilet. (b) On the other hand, the Defendant continued to use the urier toilet in the toilet and assaulted the victim at one time the victim’s left side.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning on-site CCTV images;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, etc.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant appears to be a contingent crime, and the fact that it appears to be an contingent crime, and the age, sex, environment, family relationship, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime.