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

On August 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the “C” restaurant located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 21, 2015; (b) at the “C” restaurant; (c) at around 44 years of age, the victim D (nick, 44 years of age) was defective to the purport; (d) caused the wall that the victim was expected to be on the table in the above restaurant; (c) caused the wall by the disease, which is a dangerous object on the table in the above restaurant, so that the victim’s head is protruding off; (d) 2 times the victim’s head is flick with the hand floor; and (e) flick the victim’s shoulder part of the victim’s shoulder with the wall that was located outside of the restaurant; and (e) threatened the victim and the victim with the wall that was a dangerous object that was located outside the restaurant.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with respect to E and D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of images of the victim, and of bricks used when threatening the victim;

1. Relevant Article 261 of the Criminal Act, Articles 260 (1) and 260 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to five years;

2. Where the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] according to the sentencing guidelines is reduced [the scope of the recommended punishment] and damage equivalent to six types of assault crimes (Habitual, repeated crime, special assault) (4 months to one year and two months), the mitigated area (the special mitigated person] of the punishment not (including serious efforts to recover damage), or damage has been restored.

3. It is an unfavorable circumstance that the number of people who have been punished for the same kind of crime as the sentence is rendered.

It is favorable that the injured party does not want the punishment of the defendant.

In the above circumstances, the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., shall be determined as per the order.