A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 12, 2015, the Defendant tried to provide meals with victim E (59 tax) and victim F (64 tax) at the D church restaurant located in Gangwon-gun C on July 12, 2015. On July 12, 2015, the Defendant tried to engage in conflicts between the victim E (59 tax) and the victim E (64 tax). On July 12, 2015, the Defendant continued to engage in conflicts between the victim E and the victim E on two occasions, resulting in the victim E’s injury, such as cinal salt, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, and the damage of the part requiring treatment for about ten days, respectively.

[I's statement that the defendant gave two or three prices to his own rear and used on the floor, that the defendant served as a drink for E, that the defendant served as a drink for E, that the defendant correctly made two times the part of E, H's statement that the defendant correctly used the part of E two times the part of E, and that the defendant took two times the part of E's face, and that the defendant took two times the part of E's face, it is mutually consistent as a substitute statement to the effect that all the defendant took two times the part of the part of E's head, and therefore, it is not sufficient for the defendant to recognize that the defendant suffered an injury as described in the facts of the crime against E.

On the other hand, the statement of J and K that the defendant did not exercise violence against E is difficult to believe in light of the following points.

J when the defendant intends to go to E, L and K told the defendant at the same time, and the defendant was sealed by L and the defendant, but he was forced to sit at L, and there was no physical contact between E and E.

However, K made a statement from this court that it only observed that the defendant intends to go to E.

K itself has come up with the fact that not only the Defendant did not have any physical contact, but also the Defendant did not have any physical contact.

However, it is inconsistent with the J's statement on the circumstances in which E was exceeded.