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

On February 9, 2020, the Defendant: (a) at the top of the C convenience point in Macheon-si B on February 9, 2020; (b) from the victim D (Nam, 31 years of age) working at the same workplace, the Defendant saw that “n't know of the victim’s face, sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn't sn's face, head, etc. with the right drinking

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to take on-site photographs and report internal affairs (CCTV image reading);

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

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the defendant among the grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (resumed grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the determination of types] of violent crimes (the first type] special injury (the special person concerned] special injury [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the mitigated elements of the punishment [including serious efforts to recover damage] [the scope of the recommendation area and the recommended punishment] mitigated areas, four months to one year [the scope of the recommended punishment revised according to the applicable sentencing guidelines] sentenced to six months to one year (the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines are different from the statutory applicable sentencing range, and therefore the lower limit of the applicable sentencing range is applicable to the case where the lower limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory applicable sentencing range); and

2. The criminal acts of this case committed by the defendant who was sentenced to sentence shall not be deemed to have suffered an injury by assaulting his/her workplace manual with a fluor's disease, which is a dangerous object, and the crime and the nature of the crime shall not be mitigated;

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes his mistake and seriously reflects it, and that it is only against the victim.