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

At around 09:57 on April 2, 2019, the Defendant had the mind of threatening knife employees to force money and valuables by entering the convenience store, and, around 09:57 on April 2, 2019, D', which was operated by the victim C(55) of the first floor of the victim C(55) of the convenience store, refused to move to the convenience store and display the food knife ( approximately 20cm in length, approximately 33 cm in total length) that was prepared for the victim in advance at the convenience store, and "the cash in the inside is all flife in knife in knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

Accordingly, the Defendant attempted to call a credit cooperative on the calculation platform to re- save money and valuables, but she saw “the victim was on the side where the victim was on the calculation platform,” and did not take money and valuables from the wind strongly resisting by stating that she was a person who was on the top of the calculation platform.

Thus, the defendant, carrying a deadly weapon, tried to forcibly take money and valuables from the victim by threatening the victim, but did not bring about an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 342, 334 (2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Articles 342, 334 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. of Social Service Orders;

1. Although the prosecutor sought the confiscation stipulated under Articles 2 and 4 of the seized evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes the goods, etc. provided or to be provided for in the instant criminal act.