A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 21, 2017, at around 05:50, the Defendant, “D main point” in front of the C Park in Gui-si B, and on the ground that the victim E ( South, 48 years old) who drinked alcoholic beverages on the side table table, did scambly dispute, and carried out a free cup, which is a dangerous object brought by rhetor, and put the victim “a open top of ma” on the part of the victim’s right end.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous goods and injured the victim's body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Ethic photographs and field photographs;

1. Investigation report (on-site standing rooms, CCTV counter investigation, and counter investigation of business owners);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

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

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

1. In light of various circumstances, such as the motive and background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, and the degree of the victim's injury, etc., the judgment on the defense of the defendant as to the legitimate defense of the defendant under Article 62 (1) of the Suspension of Execution Act is deemed to have caused the defendant's act to attack one another, rather than to defend the victim's unfair attack, and thus, the defendant's act was at the first place and became a defense against it. Thus, it cannot be deemed to have brought about the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the defensive act.

In light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the crime recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the means and method of the crime, and the defendant's act before and after the crime, it seems that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of the crime.