On March 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 13:10 on March 19, 2014, on the ground that (b) Seocheon-gu C building B, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si 1906, and (c) the victim D (26 years of age) who was under his age, took a dangerous object in the kitchen and takes a bath, and (b) took a part of the chest wall that requires approximately two weeks of treatment for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of the E, D, and F;

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

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defense counsel's assertion about the defense counsel's assertion of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as " favorable sentencing conditions"), because the defendant alleged that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, the defense counsel argued that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., (i) the defendant stated in the prosecutor's office as to the background and method of the crime at the time of the police investigation, and (ii) the defendant stated in the prosecutor's office's office in mind at the time of the crime of this case, and appears to accurately memory the situation at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The range of recommendations on the sentencing criteria [the range of offenses] violence, repeated crime, special injury (the scope of a sentence of recommendations] and two to four years (basic area).

2. The decision-making defendant is currently making a confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and the crime of this case appears to have been committed by the defendant under the influence of alcohol.