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

(e).

On August 27, 2015, at around 05:00, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim E by taking advantage of the victim E (the victim E) and the Defendant’s female-friendly job offering F, etc., on the ground that the said victim had expressed a desire for the Defendant, on the ground that the said victim had expressed a desire for the Defendant, around 05:0, at around 28 days, the Defendant took care of the victim E’s face, the shoulder part, the bridge part, etc., and suffered an injury on the victim E by taking care of about 28 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: The amount of injury inflicted upon the victim, conditions favorable to him/her that are favorable to him/her that are favorable to him/her: The defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances that are favorable to him/her: The dismissal of the prosecution by taking into account various conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, including the following circumstances, such as the fact that fighting is likely to result in a contingent crime in the event that he/she had been subjected to juvenile protective disposition at least ten years prior to the same crime history;

1. On August 27, 2015, around 05:00, the Defendant assaulted the Victim G by taking into account the victim G (the victim G) and the Defendant’s female-friendly job offering F, on the ground that the said victim was humping about the Defendant, on the ground that the said victim was humping, around August 27, 2015, on the ground that the victim was humping at the victim G (the victim’s age 22) and the Defendant’s female-friendly job offering F.

2. This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

According to the records, this case.