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, at around 15:50 on April 10, 2017, concluded a dispute with the victim E (the age of 55) and the return of the provisional deposit for real estate in the second floor D real estate in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 10, 2017, and caused the damage to the victim.

“I would like to hear the word “,” and then, I see the water contained in the glass cup, which was located on the customer’s face, and was placed on the victim’s side side, the glass cup, which was in danger of re-taking, and gave approximately two weeks’ treatment to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the site and photographs of damaged parts;

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

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following factors, such as favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., conditions favorable to the following grounds for sentencing):

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order

1. The accused and his defense counsel related to whether the accused constitutes dangerous articles or deadly weapons shall not constitute dangerous articles or deadly weapons;

The argument is asserted.

The prosecutor asserts that the instant glass cup constitutes “hazardous goods” and the elements for the establishment of special injury are not “the case of carrying dangerous goods” but “the case of carrying dangerous goods.” Thus, the issue of whether the instant glass cup constitutes a deadly weapon is not related to the instant case, and it is not separately determined as to this.

The term “hazardous goods” includes all things that can be widely used to harm human life and body even though they are not deadly weapons. Thus, not only those produced for the original purpose of destruction, but also those produced for other purposes, are likely to harm human life and body.