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

At around 23:00 on April 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) talked with the victim D(50 years of age) and talked about D and D, and (b) talked about D and E, which he believed to have a friendly relationship with E, and (c) took her anti-defination, as it threatens the victim by using excessive (15cc in length of the blade) which is a dangerous object at the main bank, and threatening and taking a bath, and harming the victim by her hand.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of suspect of the police accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written statement, excessive photographs, or investigation reports on the counter-party to the head of the relevant business (Evidence List Nos. 1, 3, 5);

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order reflects errors when the defendant is the person committing the instant crime.

The victim does not want to punish the defendant.

In addition, it is decided as per Disposition by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the trial process of this case.