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

On May 27, 2016, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years, suspension of execution of five years, etc. with the Busan District Court for murdering and attempted murder, and for the same year.

6. 4. The decision was finalized.

피고인은 2015. 7. 28. 11:28 경 부산시 강서구 C에 있는 처인 피해자 D 운영의 식당에서 에어컨 교체 문제로 말다툼을 하던 중 양손으로 피해자의 어깨를 잡고 눕힌 뒤 몸 위에 올라 타 손에 위험한 물건인 칼( 전체 길이 15cm 가량, 칼날 길이 5cm 가량) 을 휴대하여 목을 약 3~4 회 정도 찌르는 시늉을 하며 “ 니가 죽을래,

Doz. Doz.

On the other hand, the person inflicts an injury, such as light salt, etc. in need of treatment for about three weeks by strokeing a tree with another hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Application of the search output of the net case, and the text of the judgment;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend a lecture and the Order of Community Service are as follows: (a) in light of the method of committing the instant crime, such as leading up to the instant crime, the nature of the crime is inferior; and (b) in light of the physical and mental suffering that the victim experienced, it is not a matter of punishment that is exceptionally imposed.

Moreover, as before and after the judgment, the Defendant committed a more serious crime of attempted murder against the same victim after committing the crime.

However, in the case of the crime of this case, there are also circumstances such as the fact that the defendant did not inflict knife the victim with knife, that the victim expressed his intention not to punish under the condition of divorce with the victim after the crime, and that the victim should take into account the equity with the case where the judgment should be rendered simultaneously with the crime recorded in the previous conviction.

. The above.