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

Punishment of the crime

On June 21, 2014, at around 07:15, the Defendant drinked with Suwon-si C and 205, the Defendant’s residence, with the victim D(34 years of age), and tried to go to the house without having received the victim’s request. However, the Defendant was placed in the back part of the victim’s body, and the string, which is dangerous in front of the Defendant’s residence, was collected from the damaged part of the victim’s arms, with approximately three weeks of medical treatment. The Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as light heat on the right side of the front part, the core part, the water area, the water area, the dive part, the dive part, and the dive part of the dive part, the dive part, and the dive part of the dive part, the dive part, the dives part, the dives part, the dives part, and the dive part of the d

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Partial statements of each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A photo of the damaged part;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field map and field photograph;

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. The rejection of evidence acknowledged as probative value of conviction under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act by causing a suspicion without any reasonable ground is not permissible as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do14656, May 16, 2014). In a case where the statements made by the victim and other witnesses are mutually consistent and conform to the facts charged, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that the credibility of the statements made by the victim and other witnesses is obvious objectively and objectively acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In this case, D’s statements consistent with the facts charged in this case are consistent from the time of investigation to this court, and are credibility in light of the attitude or content of statements made in the court and the objective circumstances immediately after the present record was presented.