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

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

Punishment of the crime

On 04:30 on 06. 06. 07. 04:06. 04. 06. 06. 04. 04. 30, the Defendant: (a) had been sponsed in front of the E convenience store in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, about the day before the victim F (Nam and 30 years old); (b) the victim was able to continue to receive the death, but the victim was sponsed with plastic table in that place; and (c) the sponsed with the sponse and the sponsed spons, which were on the table table, sponsed by the sponse and the sponsed sponsed spons that were on the table table, caused the sponsed spons of the victim

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, and H;

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

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. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( considered for the following favorable circumstances):

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim on the part of the Defendant.

However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court is as follows: ① the defendant and G investigative agencies and this court are specific and consistent; ② the employee H of convenience store of this case also stated that there was a person threatening to use the shoulderer disease at the time of the instant case; ③ However, the police did not have stated whether the victim was the victim, but the victim stated that he was the victim, not the defendant, but the defendant, and the victim was the victim, and therefore the victim stated that he was the victim's disease. Thus, the victim's statement from the prosecutor's investigation was inconsistent with the statement on the most important part of the progress of the instant case.