Seized evidence 1 shall be confiscated.

1. On August 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) discovered that the victim C and the victim’s children in a multi-household housing parking lot located in Switzerland-si B around 00:25, in a case where the victim C and the victim’s children live in the city dong-dong, and then, (b) opened a door with the following door: (c) why we walk in the city dong.

“In doing so, the victim and the Si expenses were incurred while intending to board a vehicle owned by the victim, and the victim and the above D were the above multi-household E, the Defendant’s residence, and the kitchen 30cm in the way of the instant multi-household F, which is dangerous articles in the above multi-household F, the Defendant’s residence, and damaged the entrance door of 280,000 won at the market price, which is the victim’s ownership, by making a handlight.

2. At the date stated in the above paragraph 1, the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was able to get off the door of his house E, opened a door, and asked the victim D (14 e) from outside the door to drink, and the victim “I am on his own money.”

In the process of keeping the victim's clothes with the kitchen knife described in the above paragraph 1, which is a dangerous object in possession of the defect, the victim knifeed the victim's clothes, and the victim knifeed the defendant's hand and knifeed the victim about two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes, such as protocol of seizure, list of seizure, photograph of relevant case, victim, seized article, etc., written diagnosis of injury (D) and written estimate (C)

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 258-2 (1), 257 (1) (a point of special injury) of the Criminal Act, Articles 369 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act shows that the Defendant appears to have recognized and reflected the instant crime, and that the degree of damage to the victims is significant.

No. 3.