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

(e).

Around January 27, 2020, the Defendant was notified of dismissal from E, the president of the said main shop, through the above B around February 20, 2020, when he was employed in D main points located in the fourth floor of the building C, with the introduction of the former female-friendly job offering B, which was around February 27, 2020, and on February 21, 2020, the Defendant was able to look at B, setting up B in front of the said main shop, setting up the above B, and talked with the said E, and visited the said business on February 21, 2020.

Part of the criminal facts stated in the indictment concerning the criminal motive of the defendant shall be corrected ex officio.

On February 21, 2020, around the elevator of the above main office around 02:12, the Defendant, while assaulting the Victim F (27 years of age) who is an employee of the above main office, had a knife, which is a hidden and dangerous object in the outer speculative machine, cut off on the floor, and had a knife (32 cm in total length, 20 cm in length on the day) and threatened the Defendant with a knife as a knife.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written statement of F, B, and E;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Photographs of seized articles;

1. Application of the CCTV image and photograph Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Article 62(1)) of the same Act provides that the public prosecutor shall seek the forfeiture of seized evidence No. 1 (Food No. 1) and the list of seized articles shall state that the owner of the seized articles is the defendant. However, according to the records of this case, it is reasonable to deem the above seized articles as owned by B as being in an officetel where the defendant was temporarily residing in B. The evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the above seized articles constitute “goods not belonging to a person other than the criminal defendant.” Therefore, the confiscation of the seized articles shall not be sentenced)

1. Legal provisions;