[Criminal Power] On January 8, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in the Gwangju District Court's Macheon Branch on June 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 16th of the same month,

【Criminal Facts】

At around 07:00 on July 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed the victim E (Nam, 20 years of age) (i) who was under the influence of discerning things or making decisions due to lack of capacity to distinguish things under the influence of alcohol from D, which was under the influence of alcohol at D, and (ii) considered, “I am in the front of the new wall up to the new wall” to be “I am in the front of the victim; (b) 10 times in the front of the victim’s face as the victim was flick, and 10 times in the middle of the victim’s head flick, and (c) led the victim’s head flick at the entrance of the second floor through the stairs of the victim’s head flick, which was dangerous at that location, one time in the middle of the victim’s left side.

As a result, the Defendant carried dangerous things and inflicted injury on the victim, such as a thalthm, alley of the softs, alley of the softs, alley of the softs, and a thalthy of approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

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 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation include: (a) the Defendant committed a crime without being aware of during the period of suspension of execution; (b) the Defendant was seriously punished in light of the degree of damage; (c) the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim; (d) the depth of the mistake; and (e) the fact that the Defendant’s age is still young.