1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

2.Provided, That the above punishment shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Punishment of the crime

On August 30, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the “D” restaurant located in Seosan-si, C on the grounds that the Defendant had previously talked with the victim E (Nam, 51 years of age) before telephone conversations, and followed the victim’s bath, and (b) at the above restaurant, the Defendant found the victim “A” to be “A person who takes a desire to take a bath; (c) the victim was able to respond to the me, with the empty beer who was on the mebbbb B, and flick, which is a dangerous object, by putting the victim’s side me by putting the me, and the victim gets the Defendant’s hand and gets the Defendant’s hand, followed the victim’s side me by once a knifeck, having a knife, once a knife, with each other, and knife two times each one.

After all, the Defendant carried dangerous things and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as an open wound of the double wall that requires medical treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement made by the police officer in relation to E, F and G;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that each photograph, seizure protocol, opinion, each statement of investigation report (in respect of No. 99, No. 100, No. 130 of the Investigation Records), or each statement of investigation report (in relation to the defendant and his defense counsel) were in a state where the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case.

According to the records, although the defendant is recognized to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, considering the background, means and methods of the crime, the behavior and circumstances of the defendant before and after the crime of this case, it is difficult to view that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the crime of this case, and therefore

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation.