A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

At around 18:00 on January 11, 2016, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol with the victim C (59 years) and other fluenites at a non-fluorial Myeoncdong, Jung-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) carried the Defendant’s house to a different drinking house between him and the other fluor; (b) carried the Defendant’s house to a different drinking house; (c) carried the Defendant’s house to a place to a different drinking house; and (d) carried the Defendant’s fluorous things at a very very dangerous place (25cm in total length, 11cm in length). On January 12, 2016, the Defendant fluoral point located in Jung-gu, Seoul, Central-gu, Seoul, with the victim’s hand and prepared for the treatment of the victim in advance, with the victim’s hand, and the other fluoral son’s hand that requires the treatment of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against C;

1. Photographs taken by each victim of an injury;

1. Application of statutes on records of seizure and lists of seizure;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. As to the assertion of defense counsel under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak at the time of the instant crime.

Although the Defendant was in a drunken state at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the details of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have had the ability to discern things or to make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the aforementioned assertion by the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

The reasons for sentencing are as follows.