폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
except that 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
At around 21:30 on May 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) while working and drinking in the Dju's 209 room located in Pjuju City, the Defendant took a bath when the victim E (27 years of age) who is an employee of this place demands the calculation of the drinking value; and (b) on the house of beer's disease, which is a dangerous object on the table, put the victim into the wall, put the disease on the wall, and continuously put the victim on the wall.
In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of witness E;
1. Partial statement of the witness F in the court;
1. Part of the statement made by the prosecution against the defendant in the examination record of suspect;
1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;
1. E statements;
1. Determination as to the defense counsel and defendant's assertion of investigation report (F telephone recording)
1. The defense counsel and the defendant asserted that even though they had expressed a desire for the victim E, they did not display a beer disease, and rather, they denied the charges by asserting that the defendant had a defect in 112 report from the victim that he/she had broken the beer's disease.
2. According to the evidence duly admitted by the judgment, the victim asserts that "the victim was to extend the time to the defendant, but the defendant took a consistent statement on behalf of "the beer's disease was broken off at the door-to-door beer at the entrance of the beer's disease," and that the victim was away from the room entrance and corridor where the victim was located at the time when the beer's wound was broken off, and that the defendant himself was faced with the 112 report defect only after he was seated in studio spath and broken down the beer's disease. According to the defendant's assertion, F, unlike the defendant's assertion, did not necessarily witness this light. Rather, F, contrary to the defendant's assertion, appears to have been assaulted by the victim, but did not injure the beer's disease.