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.

1. From around 11:00 on October 2, 201, the Defendant attempted to steal the market price in the apartment management office owned by the victim C (79 tax) who is an employee of the management office, by entering the apartment complex in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and attempted to steal the unexplosion of the market price, but failed to bring the intent into the victim’s control.

2. During the time and place mentioned in paragraph 1 and returning home at the time and place, the injured Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim, i.e., cutting the victim’s face at several times and pushing the victim’s body into the road, thereby getting the victim to go beyond the road, thereby getting the victim to undergo approximately 12 weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. E statements;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 342, 329 ( point of attempted larceny), and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss an application for compensation order (the applicant for compensation sought payment of KRW 20 million to the Defendant with lost profits or mental damages, etc. However, the scope of liability for compensation is not clear, and thus, it is unreasonable to issue a compensation order in the criminal procedure of this case) to the Defendant’s disadvantage that the degree of damage to the crime of injury in this case is excessive.

However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the crimes; (b) the thief crime did not cause damage by committing the attempted crime; (c) the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the state of somewhat weak judgment capacity due to the mental delay, and (e) the primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment, is considered favorable