No. 1 of the evidence seized by the defendant shall be confiscated.

Summary of Evidence

[2016 order 1636]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Evidence photographs;

1. A report on investigation (to hear statements by police officers dispatched to the scene and report thereon);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A written inquiry, the number of inquiries by each person, and the current status of acceptance (2016 order 1953);

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Customer order sheet;

1. Previous conviction: Inquiry about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning personal confinement;

1. Articles 284, 283(1) (Special Intimidation), 347(1) (Fraud), and 314(1) (Interference with Business) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act for forfeiture [the scope of recommending punishment]

1. Type IV (Habitual, repeated, and special intimidation) of the basic area (six months - one year and six months);

2. Type 1 (less than 100 million won) of the basic area (six months - one year and six months).

3. The scope of the final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple crimes (six months - one year and six months): six months -2 years (decision of sentence] of the Defendant had the record of the criminal record of the repeated crime as indicated in his/her judgment due to interference with his/her duties, etc. After the end, he/she was judged to have been judged to have been in the end as a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (FFF) several times during the repeated crime period, and 300,000 won of the fine was imposed on March 27, 2016, because he/she was punished by a crime of fraud due to an unclaimed lane, and 1.5 million won of the fine was imposed due to interference with main duties on February 21, 2016, and by intimidation using a knife, it is inevitable to have a sentence imposed in light of the following:

However, the decision is made as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions, such as the fact that the defendant is in depth against the defendant, the fact that the defendant seems to have committed this case by chance, and the age of the defendant.