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

On April 24, 2019, the Defendant brought the knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning B;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Photographs of the victim B's damage and photographs of seized articles;

1. Investigation report (to hear statements by reported phone);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (STV image verification) and to photograph CCTV images;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Six to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the determination of types] of violent crimes, which is a special injury by special injury and repeated crime [the category 1] special injury [the scope of the recommended punishment]: Reduction area of punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment], reduction area of punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment], four months to one year [the scope of the recommended punishment corrected according to the applicable sentencing], and the minimum of the sentence recommended in the sentencing guidelines for six months to one year, are inconsistent with the statutory minimum of the applicable sentencing guidelines.