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

At around 19:20 on June 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) left the Defendant’s house located in B at a macroscison time; (b) left the Defendant’s house in front of the traveler C (at least 46 years of age and 90 years of age) and the mother of the Victim C (at least 90 years of age) with a large sound; (c) but, upon receiving a claim from the victims, the Defendant took a kitchen, which is a dangerous thing in his/her house, and threatened the victims by putting the kitchen, and putting him/her a kitchen, which is a dangerous thing in his/her house.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (on-site situations);

1. Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The basic area (six months to one year and six months) of the sentencing criteria (the scope of recommendations) for intimidation crimes: Type IV (Habitual, repeated, and special intimidation) (the period of six months to one year and six months) is nonexistent;

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant who did not agree with the victims of specific reasons for sentencing on the grounds that he/she has committed an offense against himself/herself, and that he/she has not committed an offense against the defendant, or on the grounds that he/she has not committed an offense against the defendant, including his/her age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the offense, means and result, etc.,