However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On December 1, 2015, the Defendant, around 00:30 on December 1, 2015, intended the Defendant to “D cafeteria” outdoor table in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, on the ground that the Defendant expressed the Defendant to the Victim E (Inn, 48 years old). On the left part of the victim’s back part of the back part of the victim’s back part of the back part of the back part of the victim’s back, and made the victim’s head in drinking, the Defendant left the back part of the back part of the victim’s back, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Partial testimony of witness E and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each photograph, 112 reported details, and written diagnosis of injury;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that five million won has been deposited as compensation for damage, the degree of injury, and the fact that there has been no recent previous criminal records);

1. Part concerning the surveillance and observation of protection, community service, and non-compliance with Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant: around 00:30, on the grounds that he wanted the Defendant to “D cafeteria” outdoor table in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, for the reason that he wanted to do so to the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) left part of the back part of the victim’s left part of the part; (b) opened the victim’s head in several times with the back part of the back part of the victim’s back; and (c) opened the victim’s head in one hand; and (d) laid down the head of the victim’s head on one hand, which is a dangerous object, and laid down the victim’s head on about three weeks of treatment.

2. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's disease, which is a dangerous thing, is a dangerous thing, and that there is no fact that the victim was committed.

G of the relationship between the victim and de facto marriage is consistent in the investigative agency and this court, and the defendant cited the person's illness and when the victim was dead.

argument is asserted.

However, the witness H, who was the main owner at the time, reported all the situation at the time, but the defendant was able to take the victim by hand, but did not leave the victim as the main owner, and the defendant was not able to do so.