However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On September 20, 2015, at around 01:00, the Defendant: (a) was a victim G (26 taxes) who was on the side table table, while drinking alcohol with F, etc. on September 20, 2015; (b) was an assaulting the victim’s flabing H and I out of the main line; (c) was flabing the flabing of flabing, etc.; and (d) was flabing the flabing of flabing, etc., which is a wall (19c x 9cm) that is a dangerous object fixing the main guidance sign on the floor; and (e) was flabing the back water part of the victim into the main wooden stairs; and (e) the victim was injured by the flabing frame and the right side flabing farmer who requires treatment between approximately 28 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect to J, G, or K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order is an offense to which the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

The instant crime appears to have been committed contingently, and the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and there is no record of being sentenced to a serious criminal punishment of suspension of qualifications or more severe punishment, and the Defendant merely received a disposition of fine of KRW 3 million and partial suspension of indictment on July 4, 2014 as a crime of violation of Road Traffic Act (driving).

The defendant has been under the pretext of compensation for damage and deposited KRW 20 million with the victim as a person who has been under the pretext of compensation, and the defendant has some favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is against the wrong.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant's dubing part of the back water of the victim, which is a dangerous object, and is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the method and risk of the crime, the nature of the crime is not good in light of the method and risk of the crime, the injury suffered is serious, and the defendant has not been agreed with the victim up to now.

The above circumstances are as follows.