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

On March 15, 2008, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the victim D (the 60 years of age), a representative of the lessor C, and paid 95 million won (the 82,500,000 won was changed to the 82,50,000 won when the lease contract was renewed on May 15, 2010).

On July 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) asked the victim of this case about the issue of payment of the deposit on a deposit basis as the apartment of this case was sold by auction at the G real estate located in the 101 dong 101, 102, G real estate in Pakistan-si, Gyeonggi-do; (b) on July 19, 2013, the Defendant asked the victim of this case and the victim of this case who talked about the issue of payment of the deposit on a deposit basis without being distributed the deposit; and (c) tried to change the victim’s H and knife to the knife of the president who was in the vicinity of this case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including DNA statements);

1. Each police statement made to D, I, and H;

1. Application of excessive photographic statutes;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do139, Apr. 21, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Do129

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that the suspended execution is more than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (recognisive grounds for discretionary mitigation);