A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On June 28, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on February 16, 2013, and the execution of the above punishment was terminated on February 8, 2017, and it became final and conclusive on the same day as he/she was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny and bodily injury.

【Criminal Facts】

On November 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 20:20, around 20:3, the special room C in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon; (b) had a beer and beer with D and beer; (c) thus, the victim E (the 57 years of age) who is the owner of the business (the 57 years of age) entered the studio and carried studio, and caused an injury to the victim of the mouth part of the mouth that requires approximately 4 weeks of treatment (including the nearest 2 cm) and the Abeer’s escape.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police statement of the E, D, and F;

1. On-site photographs, death diagnosis reports, and diagnosis reports;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports;

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

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing in the latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes is deemed to have inflicted an injury upon the defendant requiring medical treatment for four weeks since the defendant was faced with beer disease, which is an article dangerous to the inside or outside of the victim. In light of the method of the crime and the result of the damage

On June 28, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. and was committed on February 16, 2013 without being able to commit the instant crime even though he/she was under repeated crime after the execution of the said sentence was completed.

There is no circumstance to deem that the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim and otherwise endeavored to recover from damage.

However, in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the judgment that became final and conclusive, it is necessary to determine punishment in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.