On December 5, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in the Seoul Northern District Court as of December 5, 2014, due to the crime of interference with business and violence, and the judgment was finalized on December 13, 2014, and is still in the grace period.

On March 8, 2015, the Defendant, at the main point of “D” located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the victim E (the age of 55) who initially flowed alcoholic beverages at the place of “D” around March 00:23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) caused the string of the wall, which is a dangerous object without any justifiable reason while drinking alcoholic beverages; (b) assessed the inside of the victim; and (c) assessed the inside of the victim; and (d) caused the string of the ma, the Defendant was unable to identify the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding E;

1. Photographs and on-site photographs of victims;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (verification of the fixed date of the same crime of a suspect);

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders and injuries (a state in which the ability to discern things is weak enough to distinguish things from the degree that a wall, which has taken the wall in a very rough and disorderly manner, is removed from a heatr to the extent that the wall, which has taken the wall in a rough and disorderly manner,

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution, and even though there are good circumstances to the contrary, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant in accordance with the legal purport that the sentence of imprisonment only with prison labor should be imposed without fine.

However, at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant appears to have been in a riotous and disorderly state where the Defendant had weak ability to discern things, and thus, the lower limit of the punishment stipulated by law shall be mitigated twice, and the sentence shall be determined as ordered.