However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendant written indictment on June 25, 2016 is written on June 24, 2016, but it is apparent that it is a clerical error in the record (the date of the disposition is June 25, 2016, and the investigation record is 39 pages). The Defendant’s written indictment is corrected ex officio.

around 01:40, at the "E" entertainment station located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D for the reason that female visitors are not in mind, with the intention of attracting iron agents, which are dangerous objects in the corridor at the entertainment station located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and are faced with the victim F (n, 43 years old), who is an employee of the entertainment station at that place.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

1. Article 261 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 261 of the choice of punishment;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below)

1. The Defendant, on the day of the instant case, was notified of the disturbance due to the act committed at the amusement station, and paid the penalty, the Defendant was not subject to the punishment again for the said act in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case should be acquitted.

2. Under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the penalty system is different from the trial procedure of the court in terms of institutional purport and legal nature in that it provides for special cases of punishment for those who pay a certain amount of penalty by giving an opportunity to pay a certain amount of penalty by notification by the chief of the police station prior to the criminal procedure.

In addition, the scope recognized as effective as a final and conclusive judgment following the payment of penalty shall be limited to the relevant offense itself and the offenses recognized as identical to the offense described in the reason for notification of penalty.

Therefore, it is like the act of violation.