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.

1. On January 18, 2020, around 00:21, the Defendant: (a) discovered that the victim D (one’s name, two-year old age) was attached on the wall so that the victim D (one’s age, 24) can only go to narrow people; and (b) found that the victim’s left her part of the victim’s her arm’s length is lower than that of his/her hand, thereby committing an indecent act by force.

2. The Defendant, on January 18, 2020, experienced an indecent act against the Defendant before the main point of the above C around 01:00 on January 18, 202.

The victim E, the main employee of the Plaintiff, who claimed the dispute with the D above, “an excessive interest rate, e.g., the same shall apply to the appeal,” is the victim who heard the speech, whether the victim “a opening, four presidents;

Does it be said that she will make a petition if he/she is equal to shea, shea gushea, shea;

The president made a public obsation of the victim by openly obsing the victim in a large sense, “the president Nara,” and insulting him.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statements in F, and D's respective legal statements;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to D (name Nos. 1 and 2), F, and E (Evidence List Nos. 9, 22);

1. A written statement of D;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel did not have committed any indecent act against the Defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel by cutting off on the scene of on-site photographs / the instant CCTV screen, and even if the Defendant’s grandchildren faced with the victim’s her son, it was merely an indecent act because the Defendant’s son was involved in his/her her her son at the time when the toilet path was narrow so that the Defendant was her son at the time when her son was cut off.

The argument is asserted.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by this Court, 1) stated to the effect that “the victimized person was indecently committed by means of her her mare,” and the written statement on the day of the instant case to the effect that “the Defendant’s mare her mare her mare,” which was written to the effect that “the Defendant’s mare her her mare,” but the victimized person was the victim.