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

The Defendant, around 12:13 on May 11, 2020, at the 4 counter to the welfare team of the 1st floor public service center of the C administrative welfare center located in Kimhae-si working for the victim B ( South, 39 years old) around 12:13, 2020, may deduct the amount of money from the victims of the above victim and the basic pension-related consultation.

“The law was wrong while hearing the word to the effect that it was “.....”

“However, I do not think of it from the injured person.”

“I have heard the word “”, and again, I am the victim’s book, and am the victim’s own material, which is a dangerous article on the two books, and threatened with the victim as he ambry, and am the victim’s right by using water cup, which is a dangerous article from the victim to flickly flickly flickly flickly flick.

이로써 피고인은 위험한 물건을 휴대하여 피해자에게 약 2 주간의 치료를 요하는 귓바퀴의 열린 상처의 상해를 가하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report the investigation of the defendant's legal statement D, E, and B by photograph and diagnosis of each police protocol;

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 of the Criminal Act does not apply to cases where the nature of the crime is

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Six to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the types of determination] and the scope of the punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment]; the basic area of the punishment [the scope of the punishment and the scope of the recommended punishment]; six months to two years; and

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that protection and observation and community service order are more than Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act (the prohibition of access, etc. to the victim to prevent recidivism).