A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

One re-cknife (No. 1 of the total list of seized articles) seized shall be confiscated.

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:00 on August 10, 2013, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim E (the 52-year-old) who is a fluor resident of the Gu government apartment complex, at the time in front of the Damat, that he fluort fried to the Defendant, and that he was in possession of the defect that fluort frogate (14 cm in total length, 7 cm in length) with the deadly weapons that he was in possession of the defect that fluort flus the part that is the life and part of the victim once every time, and caused the victim to have approximately four weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Police seizure records;

1. On August 29, 2013, the Defendant stated that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and stated that he was not in a state of mental disorder in a state of mental disorder in light of the fact that he was in a state of mental disorder. In light of the fact that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant was even though he was in a certain state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, it does not seem that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or lack of ability to discern things or make decisions.

Application of Statutes

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Code are as follows: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment in consideration of the following: (b) the Defendant could have committed a dangerous consequence that could not be complied with by the victim; (c) the Defendant did not make efforts to agree with the victim or compensate for the amount of damage; and (d) there was little possibility that the Defendant may agree with the victim or compensate for the amount of damage. However, the Defendant’s mistake is divided.