However, the above sentence shall be executed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On August 6, 2015, at around 21:20, the Defendant, on the front side of the “Dju” store located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, set off the victim’s monthly rent from the deposit, on the ground that the victim voluntarily set off the unpaid monthly rent from the deposit even though the Defendant and the Defendant, on March 2015, voluntarily, proposed not to receive the monthly rent, set off the victim’s head, back part, back part, etc. of the victim’s head, back part, and body of the victim’s face and body.

As a result, the defendant carried dangerous articles with the victim about a maximum of 35 days of treatment, and the victim diversified diversity, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

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

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

1. Where the reason for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] is the mitigated area (one year and six months to two years) of type 1 (one year and six months) (special mitigation) [the victim] also has considerable responsibility for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage (the decision of sentence] unfavorable circumstances: A normal situation in which the nature of a crime is bad in light of the means of crime, the degree of injury, etc.; a defendant is the subject of a dispute between the victim and the return of the deposit;

In order for the victim to conduct the crime of this case, the victim did not first make a net appraisal of the victim who was suffering from beer and did not work for the defendant, and the victim was also responsible for the occurrence of the crime of this case, the defendant reflects the crime, deposited 2 million won for the victim, and the defendant was the crime of bodily injury around 2009.