A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is an employee of the “C” human resources office located in Gyeonggi-gun Group B, and the victim D(the age of 61) is the operator of the said human resources office.

At around 19:30 on January 2, 2019, the Defendant: (a) laid in the staff accommodation located in the above manpower office, on the ground that daily allowances were reduced to KRW 10,000, and 10,000; (b) laid in the victim’s breath, the Defendant boomed the Defendant’s breath ( approximately 25 cm in total length, about 12 cm in length), which is a dangerous thing that the Defendant breadd the Defendant’s breath, and flad the victim’s left hand, and caused the Defendant’s injury that the victim’s breath, which is one of the dangerous things that the Defendant bread the b

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A report on the occurrence of an injury;

1. Seizure records;

1. The list of seizure;

1. Voluntary submission;

1. Application of each statute on photographs of damage;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: The scope of the recommended sentence for special injury (type 1) and the area of mitigation (a period of four to one year of imprisonment, and special mitigation factors: hereinafter “special mitigation factors”): the crime of this case is committed in accordance with the sentencing guidelines for six to one year (the minimum sentencing guidelines set by law, as the minimum sentencing period exceeds the minimum limit of the applicable sentencing guidelines in six months), and six to one year (the crime of this case is committed in accordance with the minimum sentencing guidelines set by law). The crime of this case is not appropriate in light of the circumstance, motive, means, risk, and damage of the victim who tried to prevent the occurrence of the victim’s loss, while disputing the victim with the victim in relation to the payment of wages, is putting the victim at a disadvantage with a little risk that the victim would have dumbling the flat, and the victim’s loss of the victim who attempted to prevent it is less than 10 meters.

Although the Defendant was unable to receive wages and committed the instant crime, the Defendant was committed. However, even if there is a dispute over the issue of wages, the legal procedure and method are lawful.