However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

On April 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) within a bus No. 271, which passed through a bus stop located in the Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) on April 18, 2017, the Defendant: (c) the victim C (V) who was first deemed to have been fright while driving in a bus No. 271; and (d) the Defendant “Is the young young of the spathm of the spathm” may yield to the victim C (V) who was fright and was fright to be fright and fright to be frighted.

“Along with the need to take care of the victim, the victim was able to take care of the victim’s head at one time upon the request of the victim to give his or her speech.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. The heads of CCTV closures;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation of a bus engineer;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall be the basic area (two months to ten months) of the crimes of assault (general assault) (no person subject to special sentencing).

2. Circumstances disadvantageous to the determination of sentence: The defendant's age, occupation, sex and environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant committed the crime in this case even though he/she had been punished several times, and the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected.

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. On July 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 07:40 on July 1, 2017, the charge was committed by assaulting the victim’s flaps by booming the disturbance from the victim F (25 years) who was an employee, by putting him/her away from the disturbance, such as putting him/her and her desire to and her visitors in the store, etc.

2. Since the facts charged above falls under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, a public prosecution may not be instituted against the clearly expressed will of the victim pursuant to Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act.

The injured person is the defendant.