A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Punishment of the crime

On August 14, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six years of imprisonment with prison labor for murder, attempted murder, etc. at the Busan District Court on May 27, 2015.

The Defendant was sentenced to six years of imprisonment with prison labor due to the murder attempted, etc., and the content of the instant case was that “A and C, who was divorced on May 28, 2009, sought a person living together with C and C, and assaulted D to commit an injury (the number of days of treatment), and attempted to murder C with a shouldered so as to have the face, etc. with a shouldered so as to kill C, and attempted to do so.”

On October 20, 2016, around 23:45, the Defendant found the door door to the office located in Youngdo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City E and D around 23:45, and changed the entrance door. However, as D refused it, the Defendant laid the door door to the victim D (66 years old) that was a dangerous object in the vicinity, and caused the victim to suffer the injury, such as the loss on the part of the victim, who was at least two parts of the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door of the victim (the need for treatment for about three weeks in the criminal procedure) (the identity of the facts charged or the facts charged during the two crimes should be determined depending on whether the basic facts are identical.

This cannot be understood only from the perspective of the identity of pure factual relations, and the basic factual relations should be determined by taking into account normative factors other than the Defendant’s act and natural and social factual relations (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1526, Jan. 25, 2017). The instant facts charged purported that “the Defendant inflicted injury upon the victim by protruding the wall,” and there is a normative basic identity with the criminal facts acknowledged as above, and the Defendant recognized that the Defendant was able to inflict the victim’s loss on the shoulder glass window where the victim was faced with the wall.” As long as the Defendant recognized that the Defendant was able to inflict the victim’s loss on the Defendant’s defense, it was disadvantageous to the Defendant’s defense.

As such, it cannot be seen without any changes in indictment.