A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 16, 2017, at around 01:20, the Defendant: (a) brought a dispute with the Victim C (51) who was the wife in the Dongducheon-si B apartment house 305 residence; and (b) brought an injury to the Defendant, such as the removal of the body and the closure of the body of the victim, when the Defendant was able to bring the victim’s head to the Defendant’s her hand while entering the Defendant’s head with her hand, leading the victim’s head and body with her hand, resulting in approximately 28 days in drinking and drinking.

2. Special intimidation: (a) the Defendant assaulted the said victim at the time, time, and place set forth in paragraph 1 as above; (b) brought the knife knife (30cm in the knife length) which is a dangerous object outside his/her dwelling and brought the knife (30cm in the knife) into his/her dwelling; and (c) took the knife in the said kn

The victim was threatened with his/her son and son and son and son, and the victim was threatened.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor) regarding the crime, and Articles 284 and 283(1) (the point of special intimidation and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor) of the Criminal Act;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da14448, Apr. 2, 2009). The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical weakness or loss under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. According to the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant was deemed to have been in a state of drinking, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions