A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 13:30 on October 22, 2012, on the road in front of the Daegu Northern-gu, the Defendant: (b) reported that a vehicle driven by the victim D (n 79 years of age) was parked in front of his/her house; and (c) demanded the victim to deduct the vehicle; (d) incurred an injury, such as the victim’s head collection, scambling, and scaming the victim’s head collection; and (e) the victim’s scambling with the victim’s side 4 weeks of treatment; and (e) caused the victim by taking part in the 6th left-hand side of his/her arms and leg.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Application of the medical certificate of injury (five pages of investigation record), photographs of the injured part of the victim to Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 257 (1) of the Election of Imprisonment or Imprisonment;

1. Determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion of the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the defendant is only the victim and the parking problem.

In fact, it is true to catch the head of each other, however, there is no little injury by cutting the victim over the floor by tighting the victim and taking a scambling.

2. The following facts and circumstances revealed by each evidence of the judgment, i.e., the victim made a statement of damage, which is the same as the facts of the crime in a relatively consistent judgment in the investigation agency or this court. However, considering that the defendant's statement in the investigation agency or this court and the statement in this court and the statement in F, her husband, are different and thus fall short of credibility in the defendant's statement, and that the victim's statement is hard to be seen as a situation where the victim's statement can simply go beyond the defendant's head knife and it is difficult to be seen as a situation where the victim's statement would go beyond the defendant's head knife, and thus, the defendant and his defense counsel are fully convicted.