except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant was born by the victim B (the 12 years of age), and the wife C around 2013, while living separately with the wife C, the victim was raising C.

At around 16:00 on October 15, 2014, the Defendant committed assault to the victim’s school on the ground that the victim did not have the Defendant’s telephone several occasions, and then left the school of the victim for the reason that the victim did not have the Defendant’s telephone, and then she was able to take back the victim’s breath to the wall by using the breath hand at the same place of residence, with the victim’s 4 to 5 smuggling, and the Defendant boomed the victim’s head by using the breath air at this place, and boomed the victim’s head, and added the victim’s breath to the view.

Accordingly, the defendant abused the victim and thereby harming the child's body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation;

1. Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime; Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] The act of assaulting a child under the basic area (two to ten months) of category 1 of the Criminal Act (general assault) (decision of sentence] [decision of sentence] and the act of assaulting a child under the age below defense capability is not an act that is not permissible for any reason, and is not an act that is not easy for a crime.

The defendant's excessive behavior seems to have taken a large level of standing, and the victim seems to have taken a large level of standing.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the fact that errors are recognized and reflected, that there is no record of crime other than once a fine, that is currently not living with the victim by means of divorce litigation, and the sentencing data shown in the records.