A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2014. 10. 11. 21:27경 서울 금천구 C에 있는 D당구클럽 입구 계단을 올라가던 중 피해자 E(47세)이 자신을 쳐다본다는 이유로 피해자를 향해 “씹 새끼, 뭘 봐”라고 욕설을 하면서 소주병을 집어던지고, 그 곳 천장에 설치된 위험한 물건인 형광등을 빼내어 피해자의 머리를 1회 내려치고, 이때 깨어진 형광등 조각으로 피해자의 얼굴을 1회 찔렀다.

이로써 피고인은 위험한 물건을 휴대하여 피해자에게 치료일수 불상의 왼쪽 입술에서부터 턱까지 이르는 부분이 찢어지는 창상 및 정수리 부분이 움푹 패이는 열상을 가하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Investigation report (No. 1 in the order of evidence);

1. Investigation report (to listen to shote F and G telephone statements);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation report (as to failure to issue a victim's medical certificate)

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for the mitigation of mental illness and injury;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation [Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (Habitual Injury, Bodi Bodi Bodi Bodi Bodi Bodi Bodi Bodi Bodi Bodi Bodily Injury, Special Injury), the special mitigation area (in September through February 2), the area of special mitigation (Special Mitigation) (non-person in charge of mental illness), the mentally ill-harm (including efforts to recover damage), and the non-prosecution (including voluntary efforts to recover damage), [decision of sentence] Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of three million won at the Seoul Southern District Court on August 19, 2014, and was sentenced to a fine of two times more, but the same power was sentenced to a fine, and the victim does not want the punishment of Defendant, and the Defendant suffers from the same impulse Deliberative Contributor, and thus the crime in this case was committed.