(u)(Aggravated Influence of an Recognized Crime), violence;

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

At around 21:50 on December 4, 2015, the Defendant, at the cafeteria of the name of "E" operated by the victim D (the 44 years of age, women) who is the wife of the Defendant in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, the Defendant, on the grounds that the victim was paid food from the Defendant's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her head and caused a dangerous thing

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A photograph of the scene of crime;

1. A report on internal investigation (attaching photographs of victims at the time of filing the report);

1. A report on internal investigation (Attachment of a photograph of damage);

1. A report on internal investigation (attaching photographs submitted by a hospital);

1. A report on internal investigation (attaching a field photograph);

1. The statement made by the police on December 7, 2015 with D;

1. A criminal investigation report (a copy of a records of outpatient treatment shall be attached);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's disease makes the victim's left side side of the victim's disease one time, but there is no fact that the quota has been lowered, and that the upper part of the part 3.5cm above the part suffered by the victim's 3.5cm above the defendant's price, or that the upper part of the 7cm above the gcm above the gcm above the left side of the victim's side, and that the upper part where the 7cm above the gcm above the upper part of the gale is facing the gab

According to the above evidence, there is only a tree table in E-cafeteria, where the victim was assaulted by the defendant, and it seems that the case where the tree table goes beyond the victim, and the case where the tree table faces a fixed number of the above tree table, it appears that the possibility of occurrence is very low, and even if there was the same day for home affairs, it seems that the open top of the length, which is 7cm or cm with the defendant, has not occurred.

In addition, even though the defendant, like the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion, fell the victim's left side side by the main illness one time, and the victim suffered an injury in an open top of 7cm above the 3.5cm in the unit of a quota with the table table, it is reasonable to deem that such injury was the injury of the defendant, since there is a causal relation with the injury of an open top of 3.5cm in the part of this part which the defendant suffered.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and defense counsel is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

The defendant was at the time of the victim, who is a dangerous object, with his wife, and was a strong assault to the extent that the main body was broken, and the head body was in danger of being broken, and the victim suffered serious injury to the extent that he could be the scam.

In addition, even though the defendant habitually assaulted the victim under the influence of alcohol for ten years, most of the victims have been subject to a non-prosecution disposition or processed as a case of family information protection because they were not authorized to prosecute due to the victim's non-prosecution of punishment.

The Defendant had been prior to three times of a fine due to violence, and had been sentenced to one time of a suspended sentence of imprisonment, and the Defendant stated to the effect that the victim had no assaulted to himself by phoneing to the victim when he was investigated by a witness in the police as the instant case. Some of the public prosecution room is denied, and thus, it is doubtful whether the Defendant is against the truth of the crime by viewing it as a visible attitude in the investigative agency and this court.

이를 종합하면, 피고인에게는 심각한 주폭(酒暴)의 습벽이 있고, 그 폭행의 대상은 피고인이 부양하여야 할 처인 피해자로 집중되어 있으므로 죄질이 매우 나쁘며, 피해 자는 피고인의 습관적인 폭력에 길들여져 있는 것으로 보이고, 피고인과 피해자 사이 의 13세, 12세가 된 두 명의 자녀가 무엇을 보고 자라서 어떠한 인격을 형성하게 될지 심히 우려된다.

Therefore, even when considering certain favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the victim wants not to be punished against the defendant, wanted to live as the defendant and his wife continuously, two children between the defendant and the victim also wanting to take up the defendant's wife against the defendant who is the abandoned, and that the defendant must support his wife and children through economic activities as the most favorable condition, it is deemed desirable to allow the defendant to have reflective and self-esteem time by being isolated from home and society for a considerable period of time, and thus, to have the defendant's wife and his wife and children. Thus, the sentence is determined as above.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that on November 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against the victim on the ground that the victim “E operated by the victim D (the 44 years of age, women)”, the wife of the Defendant in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, would not drink the alcohol; and (b) on the ground that the victim would not drink the alcohol, the Defendant: (c) committed assault against the victim on the ground that the victim was “E” in a restaurant operated by the victim D (the 44 years of age, women).

However, this is a crime falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the injured party under Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act. According to the D’s written agreement on December 10, 2015, the injured party may recognize that he/she explicitly expresses his/her intention not to be punished against the accused on December 10, 2015, prior to the prosecution of this case, and the above indictment constitutes a case where the indictment procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of law, and thus, the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.