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

At around 20:10 on December 30, 2018, the Defendant discovered the victim C (the 57-year old), who hanged earlier, received 50,000 won in cash from the victim, by threatening him to take the money and having the intent to take the money, and by threatening him to take the money and other valuables. In his occupation, the Defendant taken off the knives of the deadly weapons (the blade length of 9.5 cm, total length of 21.5 cm, total length of 21.5 cm, and No. 1) to the victim’s chest, and by threatening him to “induction of the value of the money” as “induction of the value of the money.”

Summary of Evidence

Defendant’s legal statement

Article 34(2) and (1), and Articles 333(1) and 333 of the Criminal Act regarding facts constituting an offense subject to each investigation report of the police record of seizure of the statement of statement to C, and Articles 53 and 55(1)3(3) of the Act on Discretionary Mitigation and Mitigation and Mitigation of Imprisonment) Articles 62(1) main sentence of Article 62(1) and 51 of the Social Service Order Act (defluence and repeated consideration for favorable circumstances considered in the rear and rear), Article 62-2(1)1 of the Criminal Act of the Social Service Order Act, which provides for the reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, the scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines from 2 years and 6 months to 15 years [the determination of types] of robbery [2] Special robbery [the scope of punishment [the scope of imprisonment with prison labor and recommendations], the scope of imprisonment with prison labor], the subject of reduction or exemption of the amount of money and valuables to be mitigated or mitigated for both.

However, the defendant paid 2 million won to the victim and paid 2 million won to the victim, and the victim did not want the punishment; the amount of damage is minor; the defendant consistently led to the criminal investigation agency to properly and properly observe the crime; and the defendant made a statement that the mistake is divided in the court.