A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five 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

Around 10:00 on March 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) suffered injury, such as a pathal of a baby, who received the victim’s inside part of the body and received the victim’s desire for treatment for about four weeks, on the ground that the victim E (the age of 49) promptly resolved the insurance premium that occurred while the victim E was a representative director in his name on behalf of the Defendant; and (b) took part in the victim’s desire while demanding the Defendant to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement E in the second police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. A copy of the E document and written statements;

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

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes. Article 257 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations in favor of the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, Etc. asserts that the defendant's assertion and defense counsel's defense at the time when the defendant appears to be the victim, while the defendant was aware of his/her head, the defendant's and defense counsel met with the part of the defendant's luminous bones and the part of the victim's injury, and the defendant's head did not have the victim's inner part.

However, according to the above evidence, in particular, witness E's testimony, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant suffered from the injury of the victim due to the victim's head by accurately taking the around the victim's head above, and therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing was determined in consideration of the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant deposited one million won for the victim, the fact that the defendant denies the crime and did not reflect the fact that the defendant had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, the defendant's age, environment, circumstances after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.