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

At around 08:30 on April 13, 2013, the Defendant took a bath to the boundary between husband E and land of the victim at the house of the victim D (Inn, 79 years of age) located in Thai-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do on April 13, 2013, on the ground that the victim was prevented from doing any dispute, the Defendant made the victim go beyond the floor so far by keeping the victim out of the chest part of the victim's chest.

In this way, the defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as pressure duplicating No. 12, which requires approximately 8 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Copies of medical records, copies of medical records, and replies for requests for cooperation in investigation affairs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph victims at the case site

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 62 (1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Code argues that, at the time of the instant case, the victim was only the victim, who was the husband of himself/herself and the victim, had been aware of the dispute, and the defendant did not interfere with the victim.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the Defendant and the victim’s husband, were in dispute prior to the instant case due to land boundary issues. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant and E were in dispute in front of the victim’s home, ② even according to the witness G’s statement, the victim was in dispute at a distance of 2 meters from the Defendant at the time of the instant case. ③ The victim was in dispute with the victim, ③ the victim was in dispute with the Defendant after going beyond the Defendant’s family at the instant place, ③ the victim was in dispute with the victim, and E was in the hospital after taking the victim’s photograph, and the victim and E took the cab. The victim and E were in dispute with the Defendant, a taxi engineer, and the victim and E were in excess of the victim as well.