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

On February 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was the victim D (years 36) and scambling in front of “C” in the vicinity of the Solardododon Eup, Mancheon-si on February 23:30, 2014; and (b) was the victim’s face by drinking with the Defendant’s d (ages 36) and scambling, so that the victim was deprived of the victim’s face once, and scam with both hands.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as gympium and open gymium, which require treatment for about 8 weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (a statement to the effect that there was a dispute with the defendant);

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A protocol of suspect examination of D by the prosecution;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph (field, damage part) [the victim's statement and testimony of the witness are deemed to be reliable, and in full view of the contents of each statement, the defendant may be found to have a fact that the victim gets out of the stairs in the process of saving the victim's body, and thus, the criminal facts of this case are found guilty].

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution [Scope of Recommendation] is the basic area (special mitigation) of types 1 (special mitigation) (Article 4-1 and 6) (Article 62) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act) and the basic area (Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62-1 and 16).

However, it seems that the victim's wife appears to have occurred in the process of wrapping each other, that the defendant agreed with the victim, that the defendant remitted 1.9 million won to the victim, that the defendant seems to have been faithfully living in the workplace, that the defendant has no other criminal records, in addition to this type of fine and one time.