Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

Around 00:50 on September 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) discovered at the home of the victim D (A, 54 years of age) located in Ulsan-gun C, and opened a visit by the defective victim; and (b) the Defendant, “Iskn’s frien, Isn’s frien, Isn’s frien, Isn’s frien, Isn’s frien, Isn’s frien, Isn’s frien,” caused the Defendant’s injury, such as the mouth of the two parts of the closed L2, which requires treatment for about 5 to 6 weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police on D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to entries in a written injury diagnosis;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 257 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following conditions of sentencing)

1. Although the summary of the assertion stated that the Defendant got the victim in a two-way manner, the Defendant did not injure the victim by taking the process as described in the facts charged.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed in the “a summary of evidence” in front of the judgment, namely, ① the victim under investigation by the police, stated as follows: (a) “I have a face by going beyond the floor of the vehicle, going back to the front, going back to the front, going out of the front of the judgment; and (b) I have returned to the outside immediately as I reported to 12 because I would find a telephone if I would go out about five to six times; and (c) the victim was treated at the G Hospital located in the Gyeong-gun E Hospital located in Chungcheongnam-gun, U.S., U.S., and the injury diagnosis certificate issued by the above hospital was consistent with the facts charged in the instant case; and (c) the defendant also was investigated by the police, and the victim was stated to the effect that the injury could have occurred even if he was investigated, then the victim’s act was caused by the Defendant’s act.