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

On October 15, 2016, the Defendant’s “E” front of the “E” way operated by the Victim D (59C) located in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, on the ground that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, told the victim to return home from the damaged party by her horse, and on the ground that the Defendant her frighted the victim’s horse and her frighted the victim’s horse, then the Defendant taken off the transition (7cm in length of the knive day) which is a dangerous thing within both horses, and whether the Defendant “Ne-kick

C. As we would like to see C. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.F., I threatened.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal death (a knife, etc. used when the victim threatens the victim);

1. Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act / [the scope of recommendation] The mitigated area (4 months to 1 year) of the mitigated area (4 months), (4 months to 1 year), [the person who is subject to special mitigation] of the punishment [the sentence] of the crime of this case is a threat of the victim's knife and knife on the ground that the defendant tolds the victim to return home under the influence of alcohol. In light of its contents and methods, the defendant's act may have considerable harm to the victim. In particular, the defendant has the history of having been punished several times for violent crimes, and even during the suspension period of execution due to interference with the performance of official duties, it is not clear that the crime was committed in this case, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, and did not cause a big damage to the victim, and the injured person wishes to punish the defendant by the unanimous agreement with the victim.