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

On August 15, 2014, at around 22:10, the Defendant sent a sound to the wife of the victim in relation to calculating the drinking value while drinking alcohol at a store operated by the victim D(57).

Accordingly, from the victim, I would like to see the word “it is impossible to use the word “I am............................ I see the sound “I am............................................................, in the restaurant of the camping site in the above B camping site, they had a food knife (34cm in total length, 2

Accordingly, the defendant carried a dangerous knife and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of statement by the police about D (six pages of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement of E (Investigation Record No. 12);

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Judgment on the defendant's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. The claimant's act is justified because the defendant's act constitutes self-defense because the defendant's act fell under self-defense because the victim continued to be a trial cost for the defendant, and the defendant was knife that is dangerous to defend him.

2. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant, not a simple means of defense; and (b) at the time, committed the act of entering the facts of the crime with the intent of attack against the victim; (c) the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an act to defend the victim’s unfair infringement; and (d) the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an act to defend the victim’s wrongful infringement.