A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 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

The defendant is a person who resides in B building C in Bupyeong-si, and victim D (60 years of age) is a person who resides in the same building E.

1. Around 14:55 on March 14, 2020, the Defendant entering a residence infringed upon the victim’s residence, regardless of the victim’s warning, the Defendant entered the victim’s house in order to request repayment to the victim, and entered the victim’s house in front of the B building E where the victim resides in order to receive the money lent to the victim.

2. The Defendant assaulted the victim, such as the date, time, place, and place described in paragraph (1) of this Article, by hand, cutting the victim’s right shoulder, fasting the victim’s face by hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on damaged photographs of the defendant's partial statement made in his/her court, and CCTV image photograph photograph;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 319 (1) and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment against the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., that the degree of damage is not substantial, that the defendant suffers from brain death, that the defendant has no power exceeding a fine, etc.);

1. The defendant and defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act asserts that the defendant and defense counsel entered the house with the consent of the victim does not constitute a intrusion upon residence, and that they constitute self-defense, since they committed violence to defend the victim's crupt acts.

2. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the victim was the victim who suffered from the defect of entering the defendant into the damaged E, thereby suffering from the victim's sell.