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.

At around 04:50 on September 14, 2017, the Defendant used the victim’s 1st floor “Ctel of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government,” on the ground that the victim’s D (36 taxes) caused damage to the inside of the commercial building that he would move into, thereby breaking the victim’s breath by booming the breath, cutting the victim’s bat, cutting the victim’s bat, cutting the victim’s bat, cutting the victim’s bat on the part of the victim’s bat, cutting the victim’s bat, cutting the victim’s bat, cutting the victim’s bat, bating the victim’s bat, etc., and satching the victim’s bat with the victim’s bat, thereby reporting the victim into the victim’s batch with approximately 21 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 257 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment [the types of decisions] general injury (one type) to the general victim of violent crimes (the area of recommendation and the scope of the recommended punishment] [the scope of the recommended punishment] basic area, April to June of imprisonment.

3. There is no reason for the suspension of execution [major reasons for consideration] (general consideration] positive: contingent crimes, serious reflectivity.

4. In light of the fact that the assault against the victim who has been sentenced to sentence appears to have been maintained for a considerable period of time, that the victim has not been recovered from damage, and that the accused has previously been punished three times due to violent crimes, the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak;

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the fact that the defendant made a confession of his/her mistake and reflects, the fact that the damage occurred in the commercial building to be occupied by himself/herself due to the occurrence of the damage, the fact that it was a contingency in the process of resisting it, and the conditions of the