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

Around 02:00 on December 8, 2007, the Defendant considered that the victim E (the age of 35) did a dispute with the above restaurant operator that had a usual friendship due to a problem that the victim E did not pay the drinking value, and the victim stated that “I would like to drink, I would like to pay the drinking value to the victim, and we would see why I would see.” The victim stated that “I would go about, I would like to go about women, I would like to go back, I would like to go back, and I would like to go back,” and that “I would like to go about, I would like to get the head of the victim one, which is a dangerous object in the table. The victim continued to have been able to do so, and the victim made the victim one time more than the victim's head, after taking the victim's desire.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects as above and carried the two parts and two parts requiring treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused (including the E-statement);

1. Statement to E by the police;

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

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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da14008, Jan. 2