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

On September 17, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 02:56, within D in Jeju City, the Defendant saw that, among the Dos where the Defendant was drinking and drinking alcohol, the Defendant her eyed with the victim E (the remaining and the age of 27) who was drinking in other tables; and (b) during a dispute with each other, the Defendant she went out of the fright, and said that the Defendant she would die with the fright of the victim who was going to go beyond the her to the fright of the fright, while having a fright of the fright in the fright of the fright to the fright of the victim.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on internal investigation reports (on-site inspections and investigations of witnesses);

1. Relevant Article 284 of the Criminal Act, Articles 283 (1) and 283 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant committed a second offense despite the fact that he/she had been punished once for the same kind of crime, and that the defendant's crime is not easy in light of the circumstances and method of the crime.

However, considering the fact that the criminal records of the defendant's identical criminal records are 1996 and there is no record of criminal punishment after around 2006, the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects the defendant's crime, and other circumstances that form conditions for sentencing, such as the age, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment is determined as ordered.