except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 01:40 on December 3, 2019, the Defendant: (a) was drinking the victim D(50 years of age) and drinking in the Ccarpet located in Busan Metropolitan City B on the ground that the victim was not subject to telephone; (b) was fluoring the victim’s face from the victim on one occasion with the hand floor; (c) was fluoring the beer’s disease, which is a dangerous object on theme bble; and (d) was fluoring the head part of the victim’s head, where the victim’s number of days of treatment cannot be known, and caused the victim’s injury.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Six to five years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the determination of types] of violent crimes: Special injury, repeated crime [the category 1] Special Injury [the scope of the recommended punishment]: Reduction area of punishment [the scope of the recommendation area and the recommended punishment], reduction area, imprisonment for four months to one year [the scope of the recommended punishment corrected according to the applicable sentencing], six months to one year (the minimum of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum of the applicable sentencing range, and thus the minimum of the applicable sentencing range in law is inconsistent with the applicable sentencing range).

3. Determination of sentence: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the commission of the commission, circumstances after the commission of the commission of the crime, and the conditions of various sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case:

The crime of this case was committed at a disadvantage of the defendant, and the disease of beer, which is dangerous to the defendant, was committed by the head of the victim.