폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
Around 20:00 on August 6, 2012, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol, had the ability to discern things or make decisions, and (b) had been under the influence of alcohol, at the center of “D” restaurant operated by Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (59 years and (n) a hand, which is a dangerous object in the said restaurant (28 centimeters in length) that the Defendant did not return to the Defendant and the victim did not return to the Defendant; and (c) threatened the victim by stating that “the victim her necked with another hand and threatened with the victim”.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on virtual photographys;
1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;
1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;
1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the probation and community service order shall be imposed together with the sentence of probation and community service order, considering the fact that the defendant committed a dangerous crime, but the confession, the fact that the defendant is committed against himself/herself while making a confession, and that he/she is willing not to act again, etc.);
1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion on probation and community service order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. Thus, according to the evidence as seen above, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. However, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.