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

At around 22:30 on November 16, 2018, the Defendant: (a) placed an order for alcoholic beverage with E on the ground that the victim D (the years of age 45) paid the drinking value; (b) however, the victim had been in a dispute with the victim who did not pay the drinking value differently from the promise, and (c) placed the part of the victim, which is a dangerous object, one time the victim’s back to the end, and the victim could not know the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reports on internal investigation (field conditions, suspected victims and statements of victims);

1. 112. List of reported cases;

1. Investigation report (the attempt to confirm the level of damage to the other party of the victim);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for six to five years;

(b) The scope of the recommendation according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] the scope of the punishment for special injury and repeated injury [Type 1] special injury [including a serious effort to recover damage] or considerable damage therefrom (the scope of the recommendation field and the recommendation form] mitigation field, imprisonment for four months to one year [the scope of the recommendation form revised according to the applicable sentencing guidelines] for six months through one year (the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing form, so the minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range is set according to the law applicable sentencing range).

2. The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) in 2014 (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) and was sentenced to a fine of four times in total due to violent crimes. The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three times due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act.