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

The defendant is a person working as the director of F, who is a collaborative company at the construction site of the apartment apartment in front of D elementary schools in Gyeongnam-si, and the victim G (25 tax) is a foreigner of Vietnam, who works for one-day work at the above construction site.

The Defendant, at around 11:50 on August 27, 2016, listened to the horses that “A worker in Vietnam, who had been in time between Vietnam and Vietnam workers, went to sell in steel,” from an employee working as the head of F at the above construction site, and during the process of finding the above workers in Vietnam, the Defendant “I am at her head of her head of her head of her leader” to the workers in Vietnam who were eating brea in the restaurant at the above construction site.

“The victim laid off the body of the victim’s head and laid down the body of the victim’s head and 3 cm in the treatment period due to the safety mother, which is a dangerous object, on the ground that the victim took her hand while driving her hand on the part of the victim.” The victim laid down the body of the victim’s head and laid down the chest by hand, thereby causing 3 cm in the treatment period.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damage and investigative reports (Attachment to medical records);

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 to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (the defendant and his/her defense counsel does not constitute a dangerous object provided for in Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act by the safety mother;

The argument is asserted.

Whether certain goods constitute “hazardous goods” ought to be determined depending on whether, in light of social norms, the use of the goods could cause harm to the life or body of the other party or a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Do1046, Jul. 28, 1981; 2007Do3520, Mar. 26, 2009). As to the instant case, the health unit, the Defendant’s head with the safety mother, and the victim’s head.