Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above sentence against Defendant B for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On November 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) discovered the residence of the Victim A (V, 54 years of age) who was the wife in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu; and (b) found the Defendant that he was not only a woman but also a woman and the Defendant; and (c) found the Defendant guilty that he was her was her fluent; and (d) caused injury to the Defendant, such as 3, 4, 4, which requires five weeks of medical treatment for the victim, by making the Defendant her fluent drinking and drinking, on the ground that he was her fluent.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police officer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] General Injury (Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1)) (Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution) (Article 62(1) (Article 62(1)) (Article 62(1)-1 and 6(Article 6 of the Act on the Suspension of Execution) (Article 62(1)

1. On November 22, 2015, the Defendant assaulted the victim, such as the victim B (60 years of age) who is the husband of the husband in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, by finding a separate residence of the Defendant, and finding the victim’s house does not enter the house, and the victim is suspected of drinking another woman, making a breath’s breath’s breath’s breath, and booming the victim’s head and chest part by drinking, and leaving the victim’s body several times due to rain.

2. The above facts charged by the defendant-appellant are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim's explicit intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. Since the victim expressed his/her intent not to prosecute the defendant on June 16, 2017 after the prosecution of this case was instituted, Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act is established.