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

On January 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 19:13, the victim F (Nam, 40 years of age) who was found to have been in contact with E et al. and her friend, entered the room in which he she was frighted, and she was in contact with E; (b) the victim’s f (Nam, 40 years of age) was frighted, and her fright (16cc in length on a day) was frighted, and her fright (16c meters in length on a day) was frighted, and her fright was frighted, and the victim’s face was frighted with the victim’s face, and the victim’s fright was frighted by two times in which the victim’s left fright was frighted, thereby causing damage to the victim’s fright of two weeks in need of medical treatment.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police officer on F;

1. Each statement of G and H;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Emergency medical records, etc. and medical certificates;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The Defendant’s crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is deemed to have been committed on the grounds that the crime of this case, which is a dangerous object, is deemed to have been committed by the victim for three weeks of medical treatment by threatening or threatening the victim, or getting off a dangerous object, and thus, it seems that there is a considerable possibility that the result may not have occurred. Accordingly, the Defendant’s corresponding punishment is inevitable.

However, on November 1, 2015, after the date of the closing of argument in this case, the defendant reflects his mistake and repents his depth for a period of two-month detention, and on November 11, 2015, after the date of the closing of argument in this case, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.