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.

Punishment of the crime

At around 21:00 on February 17, 2014, the Defendant heard the victim E (year 43) and talked about the profit from building rent, etc. from the victim while drinking alcohol at the D cafeteria located in the Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, and tried to see the victim’s talk that “Isado, Isama and Isado,” and sees the victim’s talk that Is about “Isado, Isado, Isado, Isado,” which is a dangerous object on the table, and puts the victim’s face-to-face that requires approximately two weeks of treatment when Is the victim’s eye and common part.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant and witness F, in part;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Copy of the police statement concerning G;

1. The head of a complaint, a written diagnosis of injury, a report on investigation (the relative investigation by a police officer at the time of the occurrence of this case), a report on investigation (the counter investigation by a police officer), a report on investigation (the statement by a D business owner), a report on investigation (the attachment of a copy of the record on E business), a report on investigation (the confirmation of the fact

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. against Crimes, 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 extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel in determining the assertion of the defendant under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and the defendant's defense counsel had been suffering from a fluorial disease when the defendant was assaulted by the victim. However, the defendant's defense counsel asserted that the defendant's defense was self-defense even if the defendant had not committed the victim due to the fluoral disease, and even if the victim had done so due to the fluoral violence, it constitutes self-defense. In other words, the victim was injured by the defendant from the investigative agency and court until the victim testified.