폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, 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 05:40 on July 24, 2012, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Suwon-si C, filed a dispute with the Defendant for the reason that the Defendant’s wife D (here, 42 years of age) did not comply with the Defendant’s demand for sexual intercourse, and brought his finger into the victim’s entrance, and, at the end, “the knife, collapse, and last, the knife, the dead, and the dead” means the victim’s cell phone in order to report it to the police, and considered the victim’s cell phone in order to report it to the police, and considered the victim’s face, which is a dangerous object located in the locker’s house (the total length of 21cm, the knife length of 10.5cm) and the network (the length of 31cm), and considered the victim’s face at the victim’s seat.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement of D police statement;
1. Seizure records;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (field situations, etc.);
1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. against Criminal Crimes, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intimidation by carrying a deadly weapon);
1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15488, Apr.
1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;
1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act on Probation;
1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code of Confiscation
1. The defendant asserts that the victim entered the toilet and locked the door, excessive and rupture, was found to have frighted to the victim by a method incidental to the toilet reading room. However, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not seem to have expressed an attitude that the victim would put the finger into the victim's injury while engaging in a conflict of dispute, and that he did not seem to have taken the face in the face of the victim.
2. The victim’s statement is relatively short.