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

around 17:24, 2013, the Defendant, “2013 Godan1190”, on the ground that the husband F of the Dental Republic of Korea and the victim E (in women, 66 years old) located in Seoul Central-gu, Seoul, filed a complaint against himself/herself by larceny, the Defendant cited iron insertingn, which is a dangerous object, and told the victim as “the victim died anywhere, she will do so.” On the other hand, the Defendant took an attitude that the victim would inflict harm on the victim, such as lowering the pharmacy floor by the foregoing insertingn.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

around 12:00 on May 7, 2013, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate pharmacy business operations of the victim for about 30 minutes by force, making it impossible for the victim to enter the pharmacy operated by the victim by avoiding the disturbance, such as the frating of the main drupture, which became a double-frupture, by the reason that the victim reported the Defendant to the police several times on May 7, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

"2013 Highest 1190"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Photographs "2013 Highest 2131";

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (with respect to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act);

1. The decision of the suspension of execution under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act shall be made in the same way as the order, in consideration of the fact that the defendant leaves the court and there seems to be no possibility for a dispute again with the victim who is the lessor, the damage is relatively minor, and