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

At around 21:00 on July 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) 21:00, the Defendant: (b) told the victim D (the 29-year-old age) to d'(the c's c's c's c's c's c's cl'e, which is a dangerous object while working in the c's c's health room, and being arbitrarily consumed by the Defendant from its members; and (c) c's c's cl'e f's c's c's c's c's c's c's c' and 20'.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning D and E;

1. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Part of the police statements made to F and G;

1. Each written petition;

1. Application of each investigation report (No. 9,19) and CCTV screen (No. 9-2) statute;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, Etc.: A favorable circumstance such as the denial of a crime by the defendant, the absence of agreement with the victim: The defendant committed the instant crime to receive the compensation for embezzlement damage from the victim; the defendant did not reach the degree of assaulting the victim by siren; the defendant did not have the same criminal record; and other factors of sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act are considered. The dismissed portion dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 22:00 on July 1, 2014, the Defendant: (b) placed on the fifth floor of HA building in light of the sports luminous intensity; and (c) placed the Defendant under the control of the Defendant, who would avoid disturbance at the Pitice Center.