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

At around 20:10 on November 20, 2012, the Defendant, within a restaurant with the trade name “A”, and the victim D (the victim 45 years of age) drinks and drinks. On the part of a bad horse dialogue, the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant stated that “the victim does not have a fluorous seat with the fluor. I do so.” on the ground that she was fluor, she was fluorcing the head of the victim by gathering an empty beer disease, which is a dangerous object in which she was a customer, and led the victim to a approximately 14-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the agreement with the victim, and the fact that there is no particular criminal power);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant and his defense counsel had a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

According to the defendant's legal statement and the statement of the police's statement about D, the defendant is recognized to have a drinking at the time of committing the crime, but it does not seem to have reached the state of mental and physical disability, so the above assertion is rejected.

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