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 April 5, 2017, the Defendant, at around 10:40, committed a dispute with the victim C (46 tax) on the ground that he did not repay the money brought to the victim C (46) in an assembly-type warehouse office located in South-Namnam-gun B, 2017. On the other hand, the Defendant brought an injury to the victim, i.e., an open top part of the horse part requiring medical treatment for about 14 days, with the victim’s face being taken by drinking from the victim, and the part of the flue tree, which is a dangerous thing that the flus his face was taken by drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A copy of an injury diagnosis certificate;

1. A photograph of the damaged scene and a tree photo;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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 to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant, with the reason of sentencing Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, committed the instant crime without among those who had been punished several times as violent crimes.

Although the defendant should be punished strictly, in consideration of all the sentencing factors revealed in the trial process of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the fact that the defendant's mistake is against himself/herself and the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant.