On May 10, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc.) at the Jeju District Court on May 10, 201, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Jeju Prison on July 8, 2013.

At around 21:00 on September 17, 2013, the Defendant, at the house of the victim D (the age of 51) who is a scam in Jeju City, provided drinking with his family members, provided a scam, and then was detained by the dispute with his family members at his meeting of the married family at his own will. On September 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) thought that the Defendant was detained by the dispute with his family members at his own will; (b) and (c) the victim, who was locked in the inside, was scambling at his meeting (18 cm a day, 40 cm a day, fluor 40 cm) and threatened the victim, who was scambling at his meeting, with the victim’s scam, and (d) “I am

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part concerning D statements made to the police during the suspect interrogation protocol (two times);

1. The police seizure report and the list of seizure;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc. and other inquiry reports and investigation reports (the attachment report of a copy of the judgment and the personal identification status);

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. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Determination on the assertion by a defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation

1. The Defendant asserts that he was in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disorder at the time of the instant case, and that he was in a state of mental or physical disability.

2. According to the records, the defendant may be deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime. However, in light of the background, result, the behavior of the defendant before and after the instant crime, etc., the above assertion is not accepted because it is difficult to view that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant.