A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who works as an employee from the DoMoel in the So-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

On March 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 4:20, the Victim E (17 tax) was subject to control by the police on the ground that he was satisfed with a female who is a minor in this Moel; and (b) was flading the fat of the victim’s face by drinking 10 times the victim’s face; and (c) was satisfing the victim’s face by drinking satisfing the victim’s face.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. A report on investigation (on-site investigation and attachment of photographs);

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 257 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Consideration of favorable circumstances among the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc.

1. Although there is a fact that the injured party’s assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel has passed the cocontinct from the defendant, this does not require any separate treatment, so it is possible to recover nature, and it does not constitute an injury to harm the completeness of the human body or to make the state of health defective because it does not cause any disorder in daily activity.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted, since there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant was satisfying the victim by taking the victim’s face more than 10 times on both occasions, such as allowing the victim to satisfy, etc.

A. The Defendant recognized that the victim’s face at the investigative agency and this court had crypted at the victim’s face more than 10 times.

B. Examining the image taken at the time of the instant case by the victimized person, it can be confirmed that the cryp is confined to the entire face and shoulder part.

(c)

. As such,