The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant did not sculbling the victim’s breath, or sculping his arms and chests, etc., and, even if the Defendant, in the course of leading the victim and his father, exercised the force of force against the victim.

Even if the act is legitimate, it constitutes legitimate act.

The salt, tension, etc. of the trend claimed to be suffered by the victim shall not constitute an injury.

Judgment

On May 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) at around 20:15 on May 29, 2018, alleged that the Defendant’s husband D and the Victim E (n, 60 years of age) were in an resistant relationship with each other; (b) was fluent with the victim, with the Defendant’s husband D and the Defendant’s her husband, and was influent with the victim, and was influent with the Defendant’s fluent hand, and was influent with the arms and chests, etc., causing injury to the victim, such as fluent salt, tension, etc.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the victim’s statement, the victim’s photo and the diagnosis report, etc.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's judgment as to the defendant's use of force against the victim, and whether the defendant was a legitimate act, the defendant can be found to be guilty of the defendant's use of force against the victim's breath, and the defendant's use of force against the defendant's breath and chest, etc., and in light of the situation at the time, it cannot be viewed that the exercise of force constitutes

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the record as to whether the result of injury was inflicted on the victim, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s exercise of the physical force did not interfere with daily life even if the victim did not receive medical treatment, and that the victim was injured in excess of the naturally cured degree following the passage of the time.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is reasonable.