A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 10:00 on September 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) took a bath on the part of the victim C (here, 53 years of age) at the inside of his/her residence on the ground that the victim’s horse would disregard the Defendant’s horse; (b) took a bath on the part of the victim’s b, such as “Chewing years, the same year; and (c) male knife who had previously died,” and (d) took the part of the victim’s knife with his/her knife with the victim’s knife with the wall, and took the victim’s knife with the wall, and caused the victim’s injury to the victim two weeks of the knife, the knife, head, and other open part of the victim’s body

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A medical certificate;

1. On-site reports (on-site situations) and related photographs, although there are facts at the time of the instant case where the victim’s bucks with the victim’s hand floor at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not take the victim’s bucking against or going beyond the victim’s wall by pushing the victim, and did not deny the crime to the effect that the victim’s boomed by himself/herself was caused by the victim.

However, the victim stated that he suffered violence against the defendant, such as the statement of facts constituting a crime, after being investigated by the police twice.

In this court, the victim thought that there was the same day as the statement made by the police at the time of the instant case, and ② later, the defendant stated that he/she was married because he/she was able to do so.

However, in light of the fact that the victim's testimony ② is in a relationship with the defendant living together, that the victim agreed with the defendant after the occurrence of the instant case, and that the time when the legal testimony took place was about eight months prior to the occurrence of the instant case, it appears that there was a perception different from the actual memory due to the passage of time, external influence, etc., and that such statement was made.