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

At around 18:20 on April 16, 2019, the Defendant had been living in and around C, a woman living in and near C, located in Namwon-si, Namwon-si, and had the victim undergo a 28-day treatment, such as why why the young people would not wn up, and why the victim would be hump," and why the victim was humped with the victim’s hump “humd,” and that the victim was humped with the victim’s face and humped with the victim’s face, and caused the victim to face up to the floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the statement on the fourth trial date);

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Table of report on internal investigation and statement of reported cases; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 257 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (hereinafter “the grounds for a suspended sentence”), which is favorable to the following reasons:

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than seven years;

2. The scope of recommendation [decision of types] according to the sentencing criteria: There is no general injury (type 1) (the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] and the basic area of recommendation [the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range], four months to one year and six months; and

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspension of execution for two years, taking into account the following circumstances, and taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences in sentencing guidelines shall be determined as ordered.

[Unjustifiable circumstances] The Defendant had a record of having been punished several times for the same crime, and even if the Defendant committed the same crime as the instant crime for three months prior to the occurrence of the crime, he/she also committed the instant crime.

The degree of injury suffered by the victim due to the crime of this case is not easy, and the defendant agrees with the victim.