A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At around 02:20 on November 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) performed drinking together with the above E, E, and F, working in front of the D Building located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the ground that the victim G (24 years of age) et al. al. were drinking and hypted in the front of the D Building in front of the D Building located in Dobong-gu, Seoul; (b) had the face of the victim G due to beer who was a dangerous object in the neighborhood, and had the victim H (24 years of age) and the victim I (23 years of age) face once as the beer’s disease, which is a dangerous object in front of the victim G, one time each time as the following disease of the victim H (24 years of age) and the victim I (23 years of age); (c) had the victim G for approximately 21 days of the injury requiring treatment for about 10 days; and (d) had the victim H for approximately 14 days of the injury requiring treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the substitute part);

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the accused, G, H, and I;

1. Photographs of a shouldered beer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each injury diagnosis certificate (G, H, and I);

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (the points agreed with the victims);

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and the defense counsel were in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant were in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

According to the evidence of the judgment, even though the defendant was found to have been engaged in drinking at the time of committing the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after committing the crime is deemed to have been done.