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

Punishment of the crime

On November 29, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution at the Seoul Central District Court on November 29, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2012 and is currently under suspended execution.

At around 01:40 on April 7, 2013, the Defendant was running in the “Esing room” located on the first floor of the building underground of the building located in Ansan-si, Around 01:40, the Defendant sought from the victim F (the age of 43) the phrase “nick people, young children, and not to do so,” and left the part of the victim’s left back in glass cup, which is a dangerous thing that was located in the hot beverage in the carter.

As a result, the defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the left-hand walker, walk, wale, etc. which need to be treated for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of injury diagnosis certificates and photographs;

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. Determination as to the assertion by a person involved in the litigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (such as that the defendant reflects his/her mistake and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant)

1. The defense counsel in the judgment of excessive defense asserts that since the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim in order to oppose the assault of the victim at the time of the instant case, the victim's act constitutes excessive defense. However, according to the victim F's statement in investigation agency, according to the victim F's statement in investigation agency, the victim was at the prices of the defendant's talks with the defendant, and the fact that the defendant was not at the time was not at the time

2. The defense counsel asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

The fact that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case is recognized, but recorded.