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

From 07:20 on June 20, 2014 to 07:50 on the same day, the Defendant demanded that the Defendant drink and refund the remaining beer remaining after drinking to the victim within the E-place of the victim’s D operation in Guro-si, but the victim took the beer’s disease, which is a dangerous object that the victim does not refund, into her hand, and “only her to the beer who gets off the beer at the time of her refund.” As such, the Defendant threatened the victim with the above beer, as the victim was broken.

In addition, the Defendant, on the ground of beer’s beer and beer, called “frighten and spaw” to the victim, and broken the part of the victim’s beer with a lush hand room as the victim was frighted, and the part of the victim’s beer was cut up once.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The application of statutes seven copies of a photograph of CCTV image data (from 17 to 23 pages of investigation records);

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the grounds for sentencing that are advantageous to the following)

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than fifteen years;

2. Persons who are not subject to punishment in the mitigated area (four months to one year and two months) (special mitigation) of the mitigated area (4 months to one year and two months) of the sentencing criteria (the scope of recommending punishment).

3. The defendant's decision on the sentence of punishment has reached this court and recognized his mistake and reflects it, the family members of the defendant wanted to find the defendant's wife by agreement with the victim, and the defendant caused the crime of this case by contingency while under the influence of alcohol.