2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be postponed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 24, 2015, at around 00:13, the Defendant sent the instant “D restaurant” after receiving a report from the police officer, and sent it to E, and confirmed the details of the report, etc., and sent it to E, by sending the same at around 00:30 of the same day, the Defendant 112 report and sent it to E, “I will see whether I would help B,” and collected glass cups from D’s restaurant operated by the Defendant, and then sent it to E, “I will see she will see she,” and “I will see she will see this she will she will see she and she will she see she will she she see her her knife and she will she will she see she will she she if she will she face she will she face her to she, and will she will see she will see her two-day and she will she will she she face the two-day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

2. Each police officer's statement of H, I, E, and F;

3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records;

1. Articles 144 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

2. Article 40 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the choice of sentence, and the choice of imprisonment.

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine prior to the instant case, the fact that the crime is reflected, and the fact that the crime is contingent).

4. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

5. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;