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

On May 30, 2018, the Defendant: (a) 22:40 on May 30, 2018, called “E” coffee D along with the victim F (54 years of age) who was subordinate staff at the so-called coffee shop, and called the victim, on the ground that the victim did not follow the direction of the Defendant, who was the representative of the ordinary party, kidd the victim’s face; (b) kid the victim’s head two times out of the erogate, and kid from the stairs; and (c) kid the victim’s head two times from the stairs; and (d) asked the victim to put about about 42 days the victim’s right-hand part of the following arms, which requires treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs (speaking a coffee by the principal);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in full view of all the sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant case, including the following circumstances, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background and result of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime.

The favorable circumstances: The fact that one's mistake is divided and reflected, and that the injured person does not want the punishment of the defendant by the agreement with the injured victim: The crime is inferior in light of the method of crime, the degree of the injured damage is grave, and there is a history of punishment for the same kind of crime.