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

The defendant and the victim B (n, 25 years of age) are workplace pay for work in C.

On January 18, 2020, the Defendant, within the “E” located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, 2020, inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the victim’s head, and the victim, who had not been able to make a usual appraisal during drinking, was able to ignore himself/herself, leading to a small-scale disease, which is a dangerous object that he/she was in the mind that he/she would disregards himself/herself, and continued to do so by making the salted so and the salted so on the head, of the victim who was the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. B written statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (investigation of dangerous objects);

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

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 (including a serious effort to recover damage], or damage recovery to a considerable part [the scope of the recommended punishment and the recommended punishment], mitigation area, imprisonment for four months to one year [the scope of the recommended punishment revised according to the applicable sentencing guidelines] from six months to one year (the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended in the sentencing guidelines is set according to the applicable sentencing guidelines in law, because the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended in the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range).

3. In full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s decision on the sentence of this case recognized the instant crime; (b) agreed with the victim; (c) the primary offender who has no criminal record; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (e) the various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings of this case, including the circumstances after