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

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 2, 2014, around 09:50, the Defendant requested the victim D (the aged 52) who is engaged in the wood farming work to turn on a dangerous level, while working at a fresh house with a height of 5.8 meters above the ground of the construction site of 104 Dong-si, Macheon-si, 104.

The Defendant, on the ground of his her fluor, deducted the 40 centimeters in length, including knife, of the victim, who was able to see his fluor or dangerous things (40 centimeters in length, including knife), took the fluor of the victim’s head at two times, and continued to take part of the victim’s fluore several times by drinking the victim’s fluor, and fluor down his shoulder over the floor of the vehicle.

As a result, the defendant suffered from the victim about five weeks of treatment, such as damage to the character of head and cage cage cage cages.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis 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. 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for Discretionary Mitigation);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for probation and community service order is not a good crime since the victim’s head was at the prices of two times due to the loss of the defendant’s dangerous goods.

However, the defendant reflects, the defendant paid all the medical expenses of the victim, and deposited 2 million won for the victim. The crime of this case occurred in the course of dispute while the defendant and the victim did work at the same construction site, and the victim seems to be responsible for the occurrence of the crime of this case, and even if they were to do so, the victim is injured at the cost of the loss when the victim wears the safety mother.