However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who operates an illegal packing horse in front of the exit of Ansan-si C in Ansan-si, as the center of the members of Ansan-si, without permission, and the victim D is an employee of the service company employed by the vicarious administrative execution of the members of Ansan-si.

On May 21, 2015, at around 19:20, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim, who intends to carry on a street store business without permission at the above place, in order to carry out a vicarious administrative execution; (b) placed the victim with heavy implied state water, which has been frighted in order to sell it on the package, and then placed the victim with approximately three weeks of treatment; and (c) taken the victim with approximately two weeks of the right side, left side, and the right side part, and the image of the right side part.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. D's legal statement;

1. Four copies of a bodily injury photograph (D), on-site photograph;

1. Determination of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion of injury (D)

1. The defendant alleged that he did not have an intention because he had an implicit fluence containing hot silents, and the victim who prevented him from doing so had an implicit fluence and suffered an injury.

2. The judgment is based on the above evidence. In other words, the victim was carrying out administrative vicarious execution with the construction administration and employees of the unit office at the time of the instant case, and the defendant was injured by the criminal facts in the process of resisting the above administrative vicarious execution at the time of the instant case. The defendant argued that the defendant could not have been able to spread the defendant because he had so much a number of copies with an implicit water, and that he could not have a fluence towards the defendant. However, in light of the fact that the defendant was fluored by one hand, and that the victim's damage was caused by one hand, it is difficult to believe it in light of the fact that the victim's damage was caused by one hand, and that the victim consistently stated that the defendant was an implied part of the victim's damage.