When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On July 3, 2014, after the Defendant divorced with C on July 3, 2014, the Defendant did not have any contact with D (here, 80 years of age) with the victim who was her child care, child support, etc.

Around September 11, 2014, the Defendant expressed that the victim was in the house of the victim in E at the time of Ma on September 6, 2014, the Defendant expressed that “I will not see the victim’s Mama, the aged and her older years, and her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her older than her

The victim suffered bodily injury such as cerebral alky which is not known in detail that needs to be treated for about 21 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statement of a witness D’s legal statement (which differs in the number of times written off, etc., but the statement is consistent in that the defendant hears the bath from the defendant and her left bucks. The contents of the statement concerning the situation before and after the statement are also very concrete. There is no inconsistency with other evidence, such as C’s statement at the scene. Although the victim was not good due to the Defendant’s towing machine, it is difficult to see that the above statement was opened by the circumstance alone. Accordingly, credibility of the statement is recognized)

1. Application of photograph, bodily injury certificate, marriage relation certificate, and Acts and subordinate statutes on the 112 Reporting Case List;

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of punishment;

2. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to the detention in the workhouse cannot be said to be that the Defendant, as indicated in its reasoning, inflicted an injury on the victim who was a part of the period during which he was engaged in domination before the tugboating.

In addition, the victim is still trying to punish the defendant.

However, the Defendant appears to have committed the above crime by misunderstanding that the Defendant would prevent the victim from communicating with her child, and the Defendant appears to have committed the above crime with the remaining side of the victim one time.