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

The Defendant is a person who resides in the 1st floor of the Daegu-gu building B (hereinafter “instant house”) and the victim C (50 years of age) is a person who resides in the 2nd floor of the instant house.

The Defendant and the victim are frequent disputes over the issue of noise by the Defendant on the rooftop of the instant house.

Around June 2018, the Plaintiff D and the residents of the instant housing agreed not to be on the rooftop of the instant housing.

Around 10:00 on March 24, 2019, the Defendant committed several assaults against the victim’s grandchildren, etc., on the ground that the victim, in the instant house, was unable to get a bicycle on the rooftop by setting up the stairs that are going up to the rooftop of the instant house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Investigation report (as regards the currency content which is the owner of a house at the location of occurrence);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of seized articles;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act which choose a penalty;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act (hereinafter “Confiscation”) asserts that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense because the Defendant committed an assault by blocking the Defendant by blocking the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense. However, in light of the Defendant’s nature and form, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is difficult to deem the Defendant’s act to constitute self-defense. The reason for sentencing is that the nature of the instant crime is not good, and that the Defendant had been punished several times of violent crimes, etc. is disadvantageous.

However, there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine, and the age and age of the defendant.