A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

On May 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00, at the house of the victim D(54 years of age) located in Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu C2; (b) together, the Defendant: (c) told the victim, who was under drinking alcohol by himself/herself, who continues to drink on his/her own; (d) shouldered the victim; (e) took the victim, who was under drinking alcohol on his/her own by himself/herself; and (e) took the part of the victim’s chest, who was seated at this place, walked one time on his/her chest, and walked one time on his/her chest; (e) brought about about about the part of the victim’s head, which is a dangerous object that he/she was under his/her care, and brought about about about about 24 cm in his/her hair and one time after drinking the part of the victim’s head, and brought about about 2 of the victim’s main injury to the victim as open one week.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. The first police statement concerning D;

1. Police seizure records;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (i.e., taking into account the fact that a person commits a misunderstanding in depth through confinement life for a period of about two months, the degree of damage to the victim is not very serious, and the fact that the person has agreed with the victim smoothly);

1. Part concerning the dismissal of prosecution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for Discretionary Mitigation);

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant sent a text message to the effect that the victim D demands the Defendant to reach an agreement in the name of hospital expenses, etc. from the Defendant’s home located in Seodong-gu E 203 on May 30, 2014, the Defendant sent the text message to the effect that the victim D would have the Defendant go to the Defendant’s house in the Defendant’s house, and would have the Defendant go to the Defendant’s house, using the F mobile phone, and did not pay money to the victim, i.e., why he sent the victim’s phone, and she did not go to the Defendant.