A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

Around 09:05 on October 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the Dominium near the Dminium located in the Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, the Defendant, on the ground that he was discarded down to the Dminium owned by the victim E (Nam, 63 years of age) by fluoring the brush of the victim with a trial expense, and carried out an article with each other; and (b) during the dispute, he was at the hand of the damaged bru (30 centimeters in the brue length) which was a dangerous object used by the brue in the brue, one time at the left fluor; (c) the part connected with the bruorus and the brush, one time at the back of the victim, and fluoring the victim by her hand, and led the victim, and fluoring the victim on the left side and the fluoral part in need of treatment for about 20 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A report on the occurrence of autopsy, report on internal investigation, and medical certificate of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation, investigation, etc.;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel that there is no fact when the defendant was the victim due to the connecting part of the dump rush or the connecting part of the dump [the following favorable circumstances] under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 (C) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation: The defendant can confirm through photographs that the defendant saw the victim's flap when he was engaged in the flaping of the flap, and that the defendant was leading the victim to the vehicle where he flaping the flap of the victim, the victim's internal part of the flap, the light and the two parts occur, and the injury occurred in the mouth, and such injury can be deemed to have occurred from the external physical shock, and the defendant's statement in this court can be seen to have been sufficiently trusted by the external physical shock, and there is no reasonable reason for suspension of indictment as to the charge of the crime of this case, and there is no reason for suspension of indictment.