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

1. At around 18:30 on May 15, 2014, the Defendant violated the Child Welfare Act: (a) took alcohol with her husband D while drinking alcohol together with her husband D; and (b) took the face of the Victim E (the Defendant’s son) who is the Defendant’s son, without any special reason, she collected alcohol from her husband D; and (c) took care of her head and head of the Victim F (the age of 6) who is the Defendant’s son on drinking.

As a result, the Defendant committed abuse against the victim E, i.e., injury to the reputation of the head in the number of days of injury to the victim F, and at the same time, at the same time abused the victim E’s body.

2. At around 18:50 on May 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed an act of obstructing performance of official duties on behalf of the head of Sindo Police Station G District patrol team, who was called upon receiving a report on domestic violence cases, as described in paragraph (1), with the head of Sindo Police Station G District 1 team, and sent out after receiving a report on the same domestic violence case as described in paragraph (1), and (b) took a bath for 'Choe'; (c) the Defendant took a bath for 'Puckbucks of the above H; (d) the Defendant her head of Sindo Police Station G District 1 team, who was called the head of Sindo Police Station.’s head of Sindo, her head of Sindo

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases.

3. On August 27, 2014, around 21:20, the Defendant violated the Child Welfare Act: (a) discovered that cans are not reported even by the victim E (E) who is the Defendant’s child at the domicile of the Defendant at 1:312 on August 27, 2014; and (b) asked the victim “I would be pregnant; (c) how I would have been reported for a golding; and (d) asked the victim “I would be pregnant; and (e) how I would have been fluored with the victim’s hand.”

As a result, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the part of the elbow in need of treatment for about three weeks, and at the same time, abused a child's body.

Summary of Evidence

Each fact of Nos. 1 and 2 of the ruling.