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

At around 17:05 on September 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim’s 6-dong C market C market 20-dong C market 6-dong 20 (the 59-year-old 59-year-old Madon); (b) expressed the victim’s desire to pay the food cost by dividing the victim into the e-cafeteria with the victim; and (c) requested the victim to pay the food cost; and (d) expressed that “I am or receive money twice or more, I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. am. I am. I am. I am. I am. am. I am. I am. I am. I am. am. I am. am. I am. I am. am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am..................

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is very poor, and the result is significant.

There is no agreement with the victim yet.

However, although the defendant made efforts to recover damage, the defendant prepared 10 million won with the agreed amount, the victim refused to reach an agreement and the victim was not able to deposit because he did not consent to the perusal of personal information;

The execution shall be deferred in consideration of the fact that there is no penalty power exceeding fines for the same crime.