A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim C(the age of 57) are legal marital relationships.

1. Injury;

A. On May 22, 2015, the Defendant returned home at the above place on May 22, 2015, due to the farming day and the money problem, and went home to a dispute with the victim, and went home to the victim and brought the victim's Handphones, and brought about the victim's math, and caused the victim's damage to the spath, which requires treatment for about 14 days by drinking.

B. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as thringing 14 days of spawal, where it is necessary to treat the victim as her brain spawal, etc., by putting her spaw at the same place, and having her spawal with the victim, and her spawal with her spawal with her spawal, and her spawal with her spawal.

2. Damage to property;

A. On May 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 02:30, at the front of the instant Defendant’s house, damaged that the repair cost amounting to KRW 1.80,000,00, to the effect that, as described in subparagraph 1-A of Article 1, the Defendant disputed with the victim; (b) “invinyl chloride for a vinyl house,” which is a “victim for a vinyl house,” the victim’s ownership, shoulder the front end of the freight II and the front door glass of the driver’s seat.

B. On December 2015, around 21:00, the Defendant, at the home of the above Defendant, brought a dispute with the victim as a matter of money at the close of the said Defendant’s home, and damaged approximately KRW 130,000 of the market value of the Plaintiff’s or the victim’s own, by burning approximately KRW 90,000 ( KRW 78km).

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendant’s partial statement (the Defendant and his defense counsel did not inflict any injury on the victim, and the Defendant’s defense counsel claimed to the effect that it was owned by the Defendant’s possession of the Defendant’s first patrolman in December 2015.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the victim consistently states his/her damage from the investigative agency to this court; and (b) the property of which identity is uncertain is presumed to be co-ownership by the husband and wife (see Article 830 of the Civil Act); and (c) the facts charged in the instant case are fully convicted.