A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person with a disability of class 2 with intellectual disability, who had been living in the same dynamics as that of the victim C (15 years old) who was living in the same dynamics.

On February 16, 2016, the Defendant is liable for the noise of the Defendant in front of the building D in the eternic City where the Defendant and the victim were silentd on February 16, 2016.

” 고 하면서 발로 피고인의 엉덩이를 걷어차자 화가 나 술을 마실 때 사용하기 위하여 미리 준비하여 소지하고 있던 위험한 물건인 와인 오프너의 뾰족 한 부분( 코르크 마개를 찍는 부분 )으로 피해 자의 등과 이마를 1회 씩 찔러 피해자에게 약 6 주간의 치료를 요하는 흉강 내로의 열린 상처가 있는 외상성 기흉 등의 상해를 가하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A written diagnosis of victims;

1. Investigation report (suspects, and the relative investigation of deadly weapons used for committing a crime);

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel held that the mental and physical weakness of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and observation was in a state of mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the crime of this case by drinking, with intellectual disability 2 degrees.

Therefore, according to the records, the defendant is deemed to have been in the second degree of intellectual disability and having drinking alcohol at the time of the crime. However, considering the circumstances leading to the crime in this case, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the defendant cannot be deemed to have reached a state where the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to intellectual disability or alcohol at the time of the crime. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim with dangerous articles, and the nature of the crime is bad in light of the risk of the crime.