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

On 22:50 on 06. 06. 22:22:50 on 2013, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together with the victim E (Nam, 45 years of age) and drinking alcohol, she satisfyed the victim’s payment for the herb transaction that the victim paid on behalf of the Defendant, and she satisfyed on the part of the victim’s left part of the cat disease, which is a dangerous object on the table, after breaking the part of the victim’s left part of the catfy, she broken the catfe of the dangerous object into the body of the victim’s body, and put it over the victim’s left part of the catfy, which is a dangerous object, and caused the victim’s injury, such as the victim’s arms and body injury on the part of the victim’s body by carrying a dangerous object.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on suspect E’s injury photographs;

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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do139, Apr. 1, 20

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (wholly agreed with the victim), the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. As such, according to the evidence as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant had performed a little alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but there was no ability to discern things or make decisions accordingly.

Since it cannot be seen as having reached a state or weak, the above assertion is without merit.