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 April 10, 2016, the Defendant, within the D week located in Ulsan Jung-gu, U.S., U.S. on April 10, 2016, had a dispute with the owner of the business and the drinking value. The Defendant: (a) caused a defect in the victim E to the effect that the calculation of the business principle is met; (b) caused a defect in the victim E; and (c) caused damage to the character of the horse that requires approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the same Act (Article 62 (1) in consideration of the selection of types of punishment as the victim's strong punishment, but there was no record of punishment heavier than that imposed for the same kind of crime, and the interval between the last and the same kind of crime is at least 20 years, and other circumstances, such as the background of any contingent crime or the degree of injury, in consideration of

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;