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

Defendant was aware that he had been in common.

B, together with the victim C(W, 42 years of age) living together, the Defendant was appointed as a surety for gambling at a casino located in the Philippines, and the Defendant was borrowed from Chinese people, but it was not changed, thereby demanding B and the victim to pay the reimbursement.

1. On October 28, 2017, the Defendant committed the crime using the Kakao Stockholm, a mobile phone, at around 17:58 on October 28, 2017, the Defendant used the Kakao Stockholm, a mobile phone (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) to the victim “on the face of the inside source”.

The two are to make the guarantee letter by lending the Bame, China's abrupt, and (b) to make the Korean household known, and to make it difficult and impossible to do so, and to do so. The same applies to the death and death of the Hashes among the two, and the Bashes, so fab B, and b0,000.

The message was transmitted to the victim to threaten the victim.

2. On November 27, 2017, the Defendant was committing the crime on November 30, 2017, using the Stockholm function of the Kakakao Stockholm, a mobile phone display system, around the Switzerland around November 30, 2017, and made a call with the victim using the Stockholm function. The Defendant appears to have been dead, discarded, and discarded in China.

“Intimidating the victim”, the victim was threatened.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Copies of each police statement concerning C, and copies of each part of each police investigation protocol concerning C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (related to suspect A and the Kakao Stockholm Stockholm and threats), investigation (referring to reporting on hearing statements by the victim);

1. Relevant Article 283 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Recommendation and punishment for each of the crimes of intimidation;