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 and the victim C(58 tax) are those who work in E in e in chronological City.

On June 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 21:30 on June 27, 2016, when he/she had a dispute with the victim due to the noise caused by telephone conversations in front of the dormitory of the said company, “I am out of why he/she has left without the friend lap.

“Abundance” and the victim “abundance to the president as in the office” and “abundance to the Defendant’s shoulder,” and “abundance to the hands.”

“In doing so, the victim’s face 2 and 3 times with hand, and the Defendant recognized the victim’s face 2 to 2 to 3 times in the investigation process by hand until this court. As such, it is likely that even if it is acknowledged without modification to the indictment, it would result in a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense.

As such, the indictment is recognized as above without modification of the indictment;

Nevertheless, the victim continues to wear the clothes of the defendant, "Isk's hand."

In doing so, “the victim was injured by the victim’s body by breaking the victim’s body on the floor by putting about about 12 weeks of medical treatment in order to ppuri the victim’s hand, and by committing an injury to the victim, such as blood transfusion outside the light-to-face without an open address for about 12 weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Photographss of the scene of occurrence, materials, and photographs of victims;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the circumstances favorable to the following grounds for sentencing)

1. Whether the person has intentionally recognized the injury;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not dump the Defendant and thereby, tried to have the Defendant go beyond the victim’s body in a passive manner.