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

At around 07:30 on May 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) told the victim E (50 years of age) who was seated at the fash on the fash on the fash on the fash side of the Jinjin-gu, Seoul; (b) asked the victim to turn off the fash on the fash; (c) however, the victim’s eye and fash on the fash on the fash of the fash on the ground that the victim refused or refused the fash, “I fag or faging, I am.” (100 cm in total length) of the victim’s eye on the fash of the fash, which is a dangerous object, caused injury to the victim, such as the fashing of snow, snow faging, and other impairment of faging nature necessary for treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. Determination as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel did not inflict any injury on the victim.

2. The written injury diagnosis submitted by the victim in the crime of bodily injury generally grasps the cause of the injury based on the victim's statement, and records the part and degree of the injury observed and judged by using medical professional knowledge, and it is insufficient to be a direct proof of the fact that the injury as mentioned above was caused by the criminal act of the defendant. However, the date and time when the medical examination of the injury occurred and the date when the injury was prepared are close to the time and when the injury occurred, and there is no circumstance to doubt the credibility in the process of issuing the written injury diagnosis, and there is no reason to doubt the part and degree of the injury claimed by the victim.