A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On February 8, 2016, 04:30, the Defendant: (a) deemed that D and the victim E (21) (21) on the front of the main point located in C at a macroscoping on February 8, 2016, each other dispute with each other; and (b) on the ground that the Defendant’s face is to be prevented from being frighted by the victim, the Defendant’s age was 5 times at a drinking, and the Defendant exceeded the next floor by walking his breast part on one occasion.

As a result, the defendant caused the victim to suffer from the snow, snow, surrounding snow, and other impairment of sacrific nature that require treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's legal statement (including the statement of facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment, and the statement to the effect that there was a compromise with the victim at a place);

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. A report on investigation (to attach photographs of the victim's face marked with an injury);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 257 (1) of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Furthermore, the sufficient criminal facts in the judgment can be recognized as true, and the witness F’s statement, which seems to be partly contrary, did not seem to have been “the defendant’s time limit”. The victim’s statement was not considered to be “the victim’s time limit” under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act.

As the statement ", the defendant and the victim were not all the pages at the time, and the witness F himself does not accurately memory the situation at the time.

As such, this testimony is insufficient to reverse the probative value through the combination of victim's statement and injury diagnosis.

The defendant has a considerable number of criminal records, including a large number of criminal records, but has reached the crime of this case.