A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, 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

On September 10, 2015, at around 04:35, the Defendant reported that he/she fights in front of a D restaurant located in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and that his/her son E and the victim F (the 46 years of age) fights on his/her body, and the Defendant met the Defendant, and the victim felled into the above restaurant, and the victim was sicker, which is an object dangerous to the Defendant, and boomed the victim's body under the E's body, and blicked the victim's flick part of the treatment days to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G in part;

1. Inquiries into, and reply to, H hospitals and the application of statutes;

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 for discretionary mitigation (a) recognizes the fact that the defendant has taken the part of the victim once by an empty ward, and considering all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the details of the instant crime, the degree of damage inflicted upon the victim due to the Defendant’s crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Consideration for the foregoing reasons);

1. The portion not guilty under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act;

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the time and place indicated in the facts of the crime as indicated in the judgment, found the victim’s coconsor part of the victim two times in walking so that approximately three weeks of treatment can be cut off.

2. The evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this part of the judgment includes the victim's police, the prosecutor's office and the court's each statement and the injury diagnosis statement.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the above evidence alone cannot be said to have proved this part of the facts charged without reasonable doubt.

1. From the police to this court, the Defendant left the part of the victim’s body once due to a 'hick-in disease'.