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

At around 01:00 on March 24, 2020, the Defendant: (a) considered that the victim D (son and 42 years of age) neglected the Defendant, and (b) took twice a part of the victim’s face; (c) took one time a beer’s disease, which is a dangerous object located in the customer, and (d) took two times a part of the victim’s chest, which goes beyond the 14-day surgery, and caused injury to the victim by taking two times the chest part of the victim’s chest, which goes beyond the 14-day surgery.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding D;

1. A report on internal investigation (on site conditions, etc.)

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

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 for discretionary mitigation;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the nature of the crime is bad in light of the method and form of the crime in this case, and that the defendant has a criminal record of violence is disadvantageous.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant by agreement with the victim, and all of the sentencing conditions, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive of the crime and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the records and arguments of this case, shall be determined as the disposition.