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

On November 3, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months for property damage at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 11, 2016.

On August 30, 2016, around 01:30 on August 30, 2016, the Defendant was boarding the victim C (54 tax) D taxi in front of the “Gangll” located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, about 465, and on the same day at around 02:10, in front of the Defendant’s house located in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul.

In order to close the door by getting off the taxi without paying 16,200 won or more for money.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who prevents the victim from closing his door with the Defendant, was arrested and attempted to commit an attempted crime at the police station who was dispatched after receiving a report from the victim, with excessive amount of money (9cm in length) and excessive amount of money (9cm in length) that is a deadly weapon in his house, and with the victim’s face at the time of the victim’s face, and led the victim to suppress the victim’s resistance, and then forced the victim to waive his claim for taxi fee, thereby avoiding the payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Photographss, records of seizure and list of seizure, and receipts;

1. Previous conviction: Determination of the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel as a result of inquiry into criminal history data

1. The summary of the argument was that the Defendant did not intend to avoid paying the taxi fee because the Defendant asked the mother at home to pay the taxi fee due to the absence of the taxi fee, and the Defendant did not intend to avoid paying the taxi fee. Even after the collision with the police, the Defendant did not have the intention of robbery since the Defendant did not have the intention to commit robbery, since the Defendant continued to pay the taxi fee with the victim even after the collision with the police

2. The judgment of this Court is duly adopted and examined by this Court.