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

On August 31, 2015, around 10:00, the Defendant: (a) the victim E (48 tax) and the head of the Center intervene in the dispute arising out of the logistics delivery issue; (b) whether the victim E (48 tax) and the head of the Center intervenes in the distribution delivery issue; and (c) the Defendant “the hump to the center.”

In food, “the victim’s face is 1 time, and the victim’s face is frightened, and the victim was frightened, and the victim was frightened, and the victim was frightened, and the victim was frightened for 56 days in need of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement in the police interrogation protocol concerning E;

1. Statement concerning G in the police statement protocol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes stated in a written diagnosis of injury (a document attached to a police interrogation protocol against E);

1. Relevant Article 257 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Suspension of Execution Act [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] / [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] 1 month or 7 years of imprisonment / [the general person subject to special sentencing] - In case where damage has been recovered from the sources of punishment for mitigation (including efforts to recover damage) or considerable part of damage, the basic area [the scope of the recommended area] / [the scope of the recommended area] from April to one year and six months [the suspension of execution] - The main reasons for suspension of sentence / [the decision of sentence] / [the defendant's effort to recover damage] [the decision of sentence] / Although the defendant suffered an injury that is not less easily for the victim, the defendant committed any contingent crime in the course of his/her dispute with the victim, the fact that the victim and the defendant agreed with the victim of this case and the defendant were not favorable for the defendant, and the fact that the defendant did not have any other circumstances such as age and conditions favorable for the defendant, etc.