A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 6, 2016, at the C convenience store located in Switzerland-si B around 2:20 on April 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sealed the victim as his hand on the ground that he took a frightd speech and behavior; (b) the victim went off the victim’s inner diameter by leaving the 112 report as a defective camera; and (c) laid off the victim’s inner part of the victim’s right eye with a knife with a knife with a knife and knife with a knife with a knife and knife with a knife and knife with a knife of the victim’s face, the Defendant laid off the knife part and the knife part

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (D);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and orders to provide community service and attend lectures;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the types of decisions] the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] set forth in the first type of violent crime group [the elements of special mitigation] the penalty is not permissible (the scope of the recommended punishment], two months to one year (the area of mitigation);

2. The crime of this case, which was sentenced to sentence, is a case where the defendant exceeded the safety of the victim, and thereby inflicted an injury on the victim by means of breaking the victim's right eye with his hand, etc. The risk of the crime itself is considerably high, and the defendant was punished on several occasions from around 2003 to around 2015 due to violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, damage to public goods, injury, property damage, etc., even though he was sentenced to suspended execution and fine, and at all times, committed the crime of this case against the defendant.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant's mistake is divided and reflected, and in particular, the fact that the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant as the defendant agreed with the victim is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

otherwise, the age of the defendant;