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.

The defendant is the former president of Shindo and the victim E (59) in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant is the current president of Shindo as of the above D's history.

Defendant around 13:40 on May 27, 2017, among the Dos that had talked with FNNN in the underground of the law of FNNA, it is not good that the Defendant of F NNNN would not be matched with FNN.

A person who was thought of being damaged is entering the ground of the above law and the defendant " has been why it is why it is?"

On the ground that “the victim and the victim were in sight of the dubage,” and the Defendant got out of the dubage. After that, the victim, from the outside of the dub, she saw the Defendant’s improvement ( approximately 40 cm of wooden material material, approximately 20 cm in length, approximately 1m in length), and she saw the dubling machine around the surrounding area ( approximately 30 m in length).

The Defendant brought an injury to the victim, such as an on-site heat in need of approximately two weeks of treatment, by putting a part on the left side of the victim with the end of the above-mentioned improvement, which is a dangerous thing for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of E and G;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Photographs of evidence;

1. Investigation report (to hear statements by hospital-related persons to confirm causes of the E;

1. Photographs output, such as the skin of the victim E;

1. Cuts from CCTV images taken under the circumstances of the relevant criminal act;

1. The CD;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing) of the mitigated amount;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Da133, Apr. 1,

1. Intentional denial assertion

A. The purport of the assertion lies in the defect that the victim intends to get out of the Defendant using the wooden machine, and the Defendant’s body fights with the victim by blocking the use of the wooden machine.