A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an employee retired from the closed company B, and the victim C (the victim C) is a management employee related to the removal of the above company.

At around 14:15 on December 3, 2018, the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire on the rooftop of the B company building in Yangju-si, 6 and drinking, including the victim, and “I will see whether I will do so, I will see? I will do so,” and then, I would like to see the victim’s back water with a brick, which is a dangerous object at the same time, and then, I would like to see the victim’s back water in excess of the victim’s back water. The Defendant again sold the victim’s back water with the brick that the victim incurred.

As a result, the defendant calculated the back water of the victim with a brick, which is a dangerous object, and put the victim into two sides of the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Application of the legislation in its opinion;

1. The indictment in Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense is stated as “Article 258-2 (2)” but is deemed to be a clerical error; and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment, other than the fine for 30 years prior to the imposition of a fine, the fact that the victim does not want the punishment, and the fact that the victim seriously reflects it);

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant was in a mental and physical state under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant was deemed to have been in a state of mental and physical disorder at the time of the instant case, but, in light of the situation at the time of the instant case and before and after the instant case, the Defendant lost the ability to

Therefore, the above assertion cannot be accepted as it seems to have reached the level of or weakness.