When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who operates a “D” Kim Gba, located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim E (48 tax) is a customer who was at the above Kim Gba.

At around 01:20 on June 7, 2017, the Defendant carried a dangerous object, such as a knife a knife, which is a dangerous object on the knife Kim Gbb, and a dangerous object, on the ground that the Defendant, located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, would bring about both the victim and the Defendant, who flife food and drinked, and the Defendant would bring about all flife a mountain that had been on the knife of the knife at the knife Kim Gb’s knife, and 35cm in total length, and threatened the victim by displaying it to the victim.

(A) The facts charged by the prosecution are as follows:

The purport of “a threat by means of scambling the knife with the knife,” however, the Defendant alleged that one knife was placed on the knife box, and that there was no threat or knife with the knife of the knife, and that there was no other evidence to prove the facts charged as above.

Since there is no obstacle to guaranteeing the victim's right to defense, the facts charged are to be modified ex officio without changing the indictment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of seizure records and statutes concerning the list of seizure;

1. Relevant Article 284 of the Criminal Act, Articles 283(1) and 283 of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines concerning the crime, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not correspond to the responsibility of the defendant's act of citing and threatening the knife with the customer, but it is an contingent crime, the victim does not want the defendant's punishment, the defendant's mistake is divided, and there is no particular penalty history during his stay in Korea.