A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 26, 2017, the defendant was sentenced to divorce on the part of the victim D(61) and the husband and wife(s) on January 26, 2017.

1. On January 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed violence, around 06:0, on the ground that she was 106 dong E-dong 106 dong 102, and that she was frighten, the victim was frighten in the face of the victim on the ground that she was frighten.

2. In around 06:00 on May 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) took a knife knife (a total of approximately 40 cm) which is a dangerous object in which the victim and the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife the victim’s kn

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous articles and carried about about 2 cm in length to the victim and knee knee knee kne.

3. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant who damaged property was at the place above the police officer, and around 60 punishments for clothes (the victim's assertion that the market price is in fact, 1-200 million won) such as clothes, coaches, and domins owned by the victim, etc. (the victim's assertion that it is KRW 1-200 million) were established by infringing on the possibility of using property owned by another person, and the amount of the given property is not a problem (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7288, Apr. 19, 207). Accordingly, the Defendant modified and recognized the above change

B The Mebested property was damaged in his hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's statement (the purpose of recognizing the facts of crime as stated in the ruling 2 and 3);

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. The defendant denies his/her assault, but consistently states damage from the investigative agency to the court. On the other hand, the defendant is the investigative agency.