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

At around 03:00 on December 17, 2013, the Defendant stated that “D” located in the 2nd floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, would die if the victim E (46 years of age, female) living together with the Defendant was found to be a dangerous object (17 cm in the blade length) in the part of the victim, on the ground that the victim E (17 cm in the blade length) who was living with the Defendant does not receive a mobile phone.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records;

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. 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 (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Although the case of the instant crime for sentencing under Article 48(1) of the Confiscation Criminal Act is not weak, the sentence is determined as ordered by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant; (b) the instant crime is subject to intimidation; and (c) the victim is not exposed to any other danger; and (d) the circumstances leading to the instant crime are factors to be considered; (b) the relationship between the Defendant and the victim; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (d) the motive, background, means, method, and consequence of the instant crime; and (e)