A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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

On June 25, 2018, the Defendant: (a) was in Cheongju-si, Seowon-gu, Cheongju-si; (b) was in Cheongwon-gu, and C Hop House, and (c) was in fluencing the victim D with D on the ground that the Defendant was not aware of, but was in fluencing with D on the ground that he was in fluencing with D on the ground that he was unable to identify, the head of the victim D was glucing once due to beer, which is a dangerous object on the table, and walked with D on one occasion as a person of metal, who was dangerous object in that place, caused two weeks of injury, such as damage to the character of the two feet, which requires two weeks of treatment to the victim D on the part of the victim E, and caused the victim E to suffer from the above flucinger, and caused the loss on the number of days of sturging, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to arrest and report cases;

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

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

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

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order [the defendant and his defense counsel] : (a) although the defendant and his defense counsel had been faced with the victim D with beer's disease, and had taken the chair, the victim's head D once due to beer's disease, and there is no fact that he was once the body of the victim D as a steel processor.

The grounds for appeal are as follows.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the victim D was expected to keep the defendant back to the right side of beer's disease in the police investigation.

The above statement was made as "...." The above statement was reliable, such as there is no contradiction in light of the specific context before and after the police investigation, and ② the defendant was also in line with the body of the Dozer D, one time from the police investigation.