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

On September 21, 2017, at around 21:30 on September 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) considered that the victim D (the age of 62) of the victim of pro-Japanese arrest was unable to understand the address of the Defendant economically difficult; (b) considered that the victim D (the age of 62 is difficult to live) was unable to understand the address of the Defendant; and (c) took care of the victim’s head.

As a result, the Defendant carried dangerous objects and inflicted injury on the victim at least 2.5§¯ of treatment days which are teared.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to attach photographs of the victim's head head to photographs;

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

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of punishment by law: One to ten years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the determination of types] the special injury by special injury and repeated crime [the first category] special injury (the special person concerned] - the mitigated element: In cases of reduction of punishment (including serious efforts to recover damage) or considerable damage, [the scope of the recommended sentence and the scope of the recommended sentence] mitigation area, imprisonment for four months to one year [the scope of the corrected recommended sentence according to the applicable sentencing guidelines] for one year (the minimum limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range, and so the minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range is inconsistent with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range] (the person who has no general form of punishment];

3. Determination of sentence: The defendant appears to have committed the instant crime contingently, the only fact that he has been punished once by a fine due to a double-class crime since 2000, the fact that the victim has agreed smoothly with the victim, the degree of the victim's injury is not much weighted, and the age, character and conduct of the defendant's age.