A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

On January 8, 2018, the Defendant: (a) sought at the “C” restaurant located in B of the official city at around 19:00 on January 8, 2018; and (b) asked the victim D (40) (40) to “Ising to do so much; and (c) going to a defective restaurant, “Is to do so, not by singing, but by singing,” and then going to a defective restaurant, “Is to do so.”

“I wish to do so,” and the victim “Iskh will to do so,”

In other words, the victim's face was taken once more, and the victim's face was assaulted three times to the victim's side, because the victim's face was satisfyed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant to the effect that it is the original administration;

1. The witness E, D, F, and G testimony (the Defendant asserts to the effect that his act constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act while stating that “the Defendant is an original administration of justice against the victim.”

However, in full view of the evidence presented in the judgment, the defendant unilaterally sought a victim with the intent to attack, and thus, the defendant's assertion on a different premise is not accepted.

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) 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. Grounds for sentencing under the main sentence of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bears the costs of lawsuit;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of the recommended punishment] The basic area (from February to October) of the sentencing criteria is nonexistent;

2. The decision-making defendant is not suitable to commit a crime by assaulting a victim under the influence of alcohol;

The circumstances leading to the crime, the detailed contents of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime are also likely to be criticized.

Although the victim stated in the court that “it is only the Defendant’s death, even if having received the Defendant’s death,” the Defendant did not recognize or reflect his/her mistake, and the surrounding person and the scene.