The Defendant, around 19:00 on June 19, 2017, when it was obvious that the Defendant met with the Victim F (16 years old) who walked over the Do that operated the Ortoba in front of the cafeteria located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’E, and the said Victim would have suffered damage.

Haba Haba

On the ground that he stated “”, he called “E” as an employee and called “E” restaurant and brought the knife (28 cm in total length, 15 cm in length) which is a dangerous object to be used in the said restaurant.

The victim escaped, and the defendant followed the victim.

On June 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 19:10 on June 19, 2017, knife a knife in front of the right side of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, left side part of the victim’s left side part two times, with a knife that requires treatment for up to 22 days to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Photographs of seized articles;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. A photograph of the damaged part of the Fund;

1. A detailed statement of the processing of reported cases;

1. A copy of medical records;

1. A medical certificate;

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

1. Articles 268-2 and 257(1) of the Criminal Act of the relevant criminal facts of the crime [a knife for the dissolution of any seized article (No. 1)] of the Criminal Act provides that the knife for the dissolution of any knife is not owned by a person other than the criminal, or an article acquired by a person other than the criminal knowing the fact after the crime is committed, and no evidence exists to deem the knife as an article owned by a restaurant operator in which the knife was used or an employee other than the criminal, it cannot be

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant has caused the victim's side knife, etc. by knife, which is a deadly weapon, and the crime is not good.

On the other hand, the injury of the victim is not serious.

Before committing the instant crime, the Defendant and the victim had a vision.