A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Criminal facts

On July 19, 2014, at around 02:50, the Defendant, at the “Dcafeteria” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the ground that the victim E, while drinking alcohol together with his/her daily behaviors, including the victim E, performed the said in the future on the ground that the victim E, he/she, who was in a dispute, was the main disease, which is a dangerous object in the outdoor table, and was in a dangerous object in the outdoor table, led the victim to a two open top.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each statement prepared by E;

1. Investigation report and photographs of the upper part of the body [the defendant and his defense counsel are the fact that the defendant was suffering from an injury to the victim as at the time of the instant case, but the defendant was suffering from an injury to the victim due to an injury to the victim's head. However, each of the above evidence, in particular, in light of the contents of the written statement prepared by the victim two times and the upper part of the victim's head, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant suffered from an injury by causing the victim's head's injury as at the time stated in the facts charged. Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted).

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be repeated in favor of the reasons for sentencing):

1. In light of the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act, the fact that the offense was heavier than the nature of the offense in light of the mode of the offense in this case, the risk of means, etc., and that there was a previous conviction of a fine for the same kind of offense, it is disadvantageous to

On the other hand, the defendant seems to have reached the crime of this case by drinking, and he has reached an agreement with the victim.