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

At around 19:30 on May 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) franchising the Defendant’s technology while drinking alcohol together with the Victim D (the age of 43) within the C week located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu; (b) 19:30 on May 6, 2016, the Defendant collected the victim’s head at one time by gathering the victim’s head from the victim, and 500c glass beer, which is a dangerous thing in the customer’s care; (c) 500c glass beer, the victim’s face can not be identified; and (d) caused the victim’s injury to the victim on the eye, the eye, the eye, and the mouth on which the victim’s face cannot be identified.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on occurrence;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs (No. 2);

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 suspended sentence of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is very bad in view of the method and content of the crime of sentencing, the degree of injury of the victim, etc.

However, there is no criminal record in addition to punishment as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act for about 20 years.

First of all, the victim got off the defendant with beer.

The defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim.

In addition, the sentencing conditions identified in the records of the instant case and the trial process shall be determined as per the disposition in consideration of the two kinds of sentencing conditions.