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

On January 8, 2014, around 14:35, the Defendant said that the victim E (son, 44 years old) did not speak to himself/herself in the “D” restaurant located in P, P, and that the Defendant took care of the victim’s left eye due to the defect of the bath, and caused the closure of the internal wall and the inner wall that require approximately eight weeks of treatment to take one time for drinking to the left eye of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to two copies of a photograph of damaged victim, and a diagnosis report;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Any injury resulting from the application of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the sentencing guidelines] general injury to the basic area (the imprisonment of April to January), the basic area (the imprisonment of April to June) (the special mitigation factor] the penalty non-members [the special aggravation factor];

2. The degree of injury inflicted by the defendant on the victim shall be determined like the order, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to him, the fact that the defendant is against himself, the fact that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, the fact that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine, and all the sentencing factors indicated in the records.