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

피고인은 2014. 5. 9. 21:10경 고양시 덕양구 C에 있는 피고인의 집 마당에서, 피해자 D(여, 52세, 피고인의 처)가 약속한 돈을 주지 않는다는 이유로 화가 나 위험한 물건인 대형 해머(길이: 약 1m)를 들고 “집을 다 부숴버리겠다.”고 말하며 집 안으로 들어가려고 하였으나 피해자로부터 제지당하자, 해머를 손에 든 채로 피해자에게 “비켜. 안 비키면 머리통을 때려 부숴버리겠다.”고 위협하였다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Statement made by the police against D;

3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and investigation reports (No. 5,17 No. 5 of the evidence list).

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

3. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the nature of the crime is bad if it is noted that the crime is committed in this case.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in the instant case and reflected, there are parts to be considered in the motive of the instant crime, and the recent fact that the victim has been divorced from the victim in the instant case is an element of sentencing favorable to the

Furthermore, the sentencing guidelines, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and criminal record, were taken into account equally, and also referenced to “colatorial crime sentencing guidelines” prepared by the Sentencing Committee.