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.

On June 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the entrance of two factories of the D Company E Co., Ltd. located in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, on the ground that the victim E (39 years of age) did not timely repay loans borrowed under the name of the Defendant; (b) approximately two times in bulk, such as the victim’s left side gate and side gate, etc.; (c) 5 times in bulk in bulk, after putting the victim on the floor, putting the victim into the floor, and putting the victim’s head at one time in bulk.

As a result, the Defendant carried dangerous things with the victim and inflicted injury on the victim, such as cerebral celebs, which requires treatment for about two weeks, without any open address.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Police seizure records, list of seizure, and evidence of seizure;

1. A medical certificate, a suspect suspected, and a photographic photo of the upper part of the victim's wife;

1. Investigation reports (on-site mobilization, etc.);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the attachment of magnetic photographs, such as arrest, etc. to crimes) and accompanying documents;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following factors, such as favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., conditions favorable to the following grounds for sentencing):

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Six months to five years; and

2. Scope of recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not set for the crimes of special injury in this case.

3. 선고형의 결정 ◎ 불리한 정상 - 이 사건 범행으로 피해자의 머리 등에 피가 났고, 피해자는 두피 손상에 대해 봉합 술까지 받았음 - 피고인은 피해자의 피해 회복을 위하여 아무런 조치도 취하지 않았고, 피해자는 피고인의 처벌을 원하고 있음 ◎ 유리한 정상 - 이 사건 범행의 경위에 관하여 참작할 사정이 있음 - 피고인은 동종 범죄로 처벌 받거나 벌금형을 초과하여 처벌 받은 전력이...