A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 5, 2014, at around 23:00, the Defendant expressed the Defendant’s desire for the father of the victim D (the age of 25) who was sentenced to the Defendant’s punishment, and the victim expressed the victim’s “Is the desire to do so to do so to do so to do so to do so to do so.” On the ground that the Defendant, at around 23:00, 106 and 307, Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, when the Defendant took part in the face of the

As a result, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the victim’s nomenclature booming, etc., and caused the victim to be unable to lose the cryptive force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. A letter of general diagnosis;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (attached to a written request for evaluation of the loss rate of labor ability);

1. Article 258 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following grounds for sentencing)

1. Although the main point of the argument is that the defendant 2 and 3 times her bucked with the victim's hand floor, there is no proximate causal relation between the defendant's assault and the victim's serious injury, the defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of serious injury.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court including the aforementioned evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the victim was injured by the Defendant’s assault, such as booming of the brut, thereby losing the vision. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.

1. The victim is the victim's hand floor where "the defendant laid the face of the eye part by hand and the scam of not less than 4 to not less than 5 can be spreaded by force."