Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a director of the Hanjin-gu's office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office-based office
The Defendant did not confirm the existence of a person in the ordinary sense and delivered a door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-house-to-door-house-
At around 11:00 on February 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) intending to place the goods at the guard room of the instant Creshing room; (b) intending to listen to Finn to the purport that “I immediately know the delivery of the goods, and how I would like to do so,” from the victim, “I would like to take the delivery of the goods promptly; (c) I want to do so; and (d) I would like to take the victim’s chest against the floor by pushing the victim’s chest by hand.”
As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as salt, tensions, etc. in the cryp of the cryp that requires treatment for about two weeks.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Each legal statement of D and E;
1. A written diagnosis of injury;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning treatment;
1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act on criminal facts is disadvantageous to the following: (a) the crime of this case was committed by the elderly under 72 years of age; (b) the nature of the crime is bad; (c) the defendant's refusal of the charge; (d) the defendant lacks sufficient reflectivity while denying the charge; (e) the victim suffered new suffering by attending the court and making a statement of the fact of damage; and (e) the parent of the defendant agreed with the victim, but the defendant asserts to the effect that "an agreement was reached against his will."
However, the victim expresses his/her intention that the degree of injury suffered by the victim is not very severe, and that the victim does not want to receive a mutual agreement from the parent of the defendant.