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

(e).

The defendant does not state the fact that the defendant is in a state of mental disorder because of mental fissionation and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. However, in light of the applicable provisions and evidence of the indictment, this seems to have been omitted.

Around 06:00 on December 17, 2014, the victim E (the 58-year-old) who is a patient of the same medical care source in the 3rd Dolwon DD medical care center located in Seosan-si, Daz. left the back part of the victim's head with the Switzerland water cup, without any justifiable reason, and caused the victim's physical fighting with the victim's hand by "if this gue is why gue is why gue is dissat." At the same time, the victim was set over the corridor's body, and the defendant was shocked over the corridor's body, and the victim was shocked for a long time, and the victim was 3-4 times with the victim's fat, with the victim's fat, and 2-3 times the victim's fat with the victim's fat, and followed the victim's fat, and then the victim's fat at one time the victim's fat.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to F and G;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 260 (1) of the Election of Imprisonment;

2. Statutory mitigation under Articles 10 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

3. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. The act of the defendant of the gist of the allegation constitutes self-defense.

2. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was satisfy with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unjust attack, and that the act was committed against one another’s attack, the act is at the same time a defensive act, and thus, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004, respectively.