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

around 23:00 on August 20, 2017, at the defendant's house located in the north-gu in Busan, the defendant was punished for a dispute at the expense of neighboring C, a neighbor, and at the time when the date was lower than C, during the mixed drinking, and the victim D (W, 53 years of age) who met C, the wife of C, who met C, was in the front of the defendant. In his/her hand, the defendant was suffering from a fluoral disease, which is a dangerous object in the front of the defendant, in which the number of days of treatment cannot be known to the victim.

It was revised ex officio according to facts obtained through the examination of evidence without the amendment process to the extent that it does not disadvantage the defendant's defense right.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Partial recording of witness D in the seventh trial records;

1. On-site photographs and victim photographs;

1. Determination of the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of the investigation report (attached to the scene photograph at the time of damage)

1. The gist of the assertion lies in the fact that the defendant caused an injury to the injured party by making the injured party to the injured party in his left hand, but the defendant does not have taken the injured party toward the injured party, and therefore, the defendant does not have the intention to cause an injury to the injured party.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the Defendant was difficult to keep the distance between the Defendant and the victim at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and the Defendant was well aware of the victim’s location at the time of the occurrence of the instant case’s injury. In light of the fact that the Defendant could have sufficiently known that the Defendant could have suffered injury due to the injury of the victim due to the injury caused by the injury by the injury to the Defendant’s left hand, the Defendant could have acknowledged the intention of special injury to the Defendant rather than having directly faced the injury to the victim by the injury to the victim.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation.