However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On August 14, 2016, at the “D cafeteria” located in Daegu Northern-gu C around 19:00, the Defendant: (a) was the victim E (55 years old) who performed drinking on the side tables of the Defendant, and was in a dispute with the view to trial; (b) the injured party extracted large trees, which are dangerous objects outside the restaurant, followed by going to go out of the restaurant, and laid down twice the vessels of the injured party; (c) the trees were flicked once, and the left part floor was flicked once.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous things with the victim, who is not damaged by saws that need to be treated for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Partial statement of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement in the police interrogation protocol concerning E;

1. Statement made to F in the police statement protocol;

1. Each description of the investigation report (Attachment of a medical certificate), investigation report (as to the statement of a shote), investigation report (as to the recent case details of the suspect A), and investigation report (as to the contents of the case of the suspect A), asserts to the effect that the defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim E, and instead, the victim E and his wife F unilaterally inflicted any injury upon the defendant, and the injury inflicted on the victim E was self-harmed by the victim E.

In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, i.e., ① the victim E consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court to the effect that the Defendant was injured by large tree scam, and the victim E’s statement appears to be partially supported by each specific, injury diagnosis, G, and F’s respective statements. ② The Defendant first extracted large scams from the victim E even though he was not threatened by the victim E, and it appears to be in the circumstance where the Defendant first expressed his intent to harm the victim E, and ③ the Defendant committed the instant crime three days.