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

On September 21, 2017, at around 21:30 on September 21, 2017, the Defendant drinked four son, including the victim D (year 58) before Daejeon Seo-gu B, and her head was fluord with the victim’s head fluort, the Defendant was fluord with the victim’s fluort, and her head was fluord with the victim’s head fluort.

As a result, the defendant carried dangerous articles and inflicted bodily injury on the victim for about 21 days, such as two skins requiring medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and D;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspects (defendants and victims);

1. Hearing statements from witnesses to the F;

1. Statement made by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the victim's photograph, injury diagnosis report, etc.;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of 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. Order to attend lectures or order to provide community service under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense to escape from an unlawful infringement as a passive defense against the victim's escape, as a defense against the victim's escape, Article 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 50,000 won for witness E., 347,800 won for attorney-at-law who is a public defender).

According to the evidence requested by the prosecutor and the victim's statement in court, while the victim had a dispute between the defendant and the defendant on the ground that the victim had an examination room against the defendant, the victim is deemed to have a right-to-face sweeted first, but he was found to have a right-to-face sweeted, and immediately thereafter, he was found to have a right-to-face sweeted by the victim's head. Thus, it is recognized that the defendant's act was to defend the victim's unfair infringement of legal interests.