The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

On September 18, 2016, around 03:30, the Defendant found that the victim C (the remaining, 24 years old) was fluording the victim's female friendly arrest D (n, 23 years old) while drinking and returning home with drinking alcohol at around 301 Dong-ro, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 234 Madro 301, and considered that the male would threaten the female, and that the Defendant is fluentd with D "Is son's vegetable, 23 years old."

“A person who is fine” shall be asked as “A person who is fine.

Men's boys도요

Even though the victim responded to “,” he assaulted the victim by making the victim’s breath hand on the ground that the victim had expressed a desire to do so, it refers to “insuling.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning CCTV image-recording data to captures;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. A fine not exceeding 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 59(1) of the Suspension of Pronouncement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15488, Apr. 2, 2009) provides that the Defendant and defense counsel’s defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and defense counsel may be considered as a justifiable act since the Defendant was out

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant first thought that the victim would threaten D and tried to d to d, and later, people including the defendant's friendships and others separated the victim from the defendant and the victim. It is recognized that the defective defendant who the victim attempted to bread while taking the defendant's desire to do so, and that the defendant breathdd the victim's breath.

According to the above facts, people in the neighborhood are the defendant.