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

On May 20, 2014, at around 02:10, the Defendant: (a) had the victim B, an acting driver, operate the Defendant’s vehicle on the front side of the Magman Citizens’ Center, which was located in the light view of 20:0 on May 20, 2014; (b) had the victim B, an acting driver, but did not pay the expenses for his/her acting driver; (c) he/she had the walth (30 cm in total length, 20 cm in length in the day length) with the Defendant’s hand, and walked the victim’s balth with his/her left hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A criminal investigation report;

1. A written statement prepared B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to damaged photographs and seized objects;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the confession and rebuttal of the defendant, the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, and the degree of damage suffered by the victim does not exceed the limit);

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

1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 (1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2 (2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. (Consideration of many records of punishment for the same kind of crime);

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that the judgment on the defendant's argument under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act was in a state of mental disorder by stating that he/she was unable to memory at the time of the crime.

According to the records, although the defendant's drinking is recognized, it cannot be seen that the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions has been weak or lost. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.