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

At around 17:00 on September 30, 2016, the Defendant suspected of having sexual intercourse with the victim C (the 75-year-old) at his/her own residence located in literature B, and asked the victim into the victim. The Defendant, by hand, left the victim’s head of the victimized person of the water in the pest located on three to four occasions at the victim’s scam, and was in the victim’s head of the victimized person. The Defendant, by carrying a food knife (the blade length is approximately 18cm), which is a dangerous object in the scambling at the front and back of the Defendant, was knife in the front and back of the Defendant, and knife the knife of the knife with the knife at the knife and the knife with the knife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the first trial record;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against C;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the internal investigation report (Evidence No. 14 No. 5) and the investigation report (Evidence List No. 25);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection;

1. While one owner of the seized knife recorded in the seizure protocol and the seizure list, according to the records, the owner of the knife can recognize the fact that he is the defendant.

The sentencing of Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is heavy in consideration of the motive of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the contents thereof.

It is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and against the victim, the fact that the damaged person was taking the front of the defendant by agreement with the victim, the consideration is given in favor of the fact that the injured person was taking the front of the defendant, and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments in this case were considered, and the sentence is determined as ordered by the victim against the victim