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

On February 5, 2020, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00, the Defendant knew of the “D” restaurant located in Jeju City, and went to a trial with the victim B while drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol; and (b) caused the victim’s injury to the victim by drinking alcohol twice on about four weeks after drinking alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness B and E’s written complaint, each written diagnosis of injury (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the victim’s entrance fee was not fit at the time of the instant case, but this court duly adopted and investigated the evidence as follows. In other words, although the victim appears to be above the victim immediately before the instant case, it seems that the victim was sitting at the place of the drinking sea floor, and it seems that the face part was not faced with the floor, and the defendant seems to have started with the victim’s entrance fee. The defendant was difficult to turn on the floor at the time of the instant case, and it was difficult for the defendant and the victim to see each other at the time of the instant case. In light of the fact that it was difficult to find the factors that the victim may suffer injury, such as the right part of the victim’s entrance fee, etc. other than the defendant’s violence, the defendant’s assertion that the victim used violence as stated in the facts charged is without merit.

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following conditions shall be considered in light of the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The grounds for sentencing of Articles 32(1)3 and 32(2) and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Dismissal of Action, etc. of Application for Compensation (the scope of liability to compensate against the applicant for compensation is not clear, and it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the criminal procedure of this case).