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

On May 1, 2017, at around 01:30, the Defendant ordered the beer to the victim D (Woo, 51 years old) of Suwon-si C Victim D (Woo), and took the same attitude that the Defendant would inflict harm on the victim’s life or body if the victim did not lock the door. The Defendant took the same attitude that the Defendant would inflict harm on the victim’s body if the victim did not lock the door.

Accordingly, the defendant carried a knife, which is a dangerous thing, and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A criminal investigation report (CCTV investigation) and a criminal investigation report (a criminal investigation into the criminal attempts);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the scene photographs of the scene of occurrence, the suspect's access to the scene of crime, and the escape photographs;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court Sentencing / [type] the scope of the recommended sentence for the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee / [specific intimidation for repeated Crime] mitigation area of the fourth category (special intimidation for habitual repeated crime) reduction area / [the scope of the recommended sentence] mitigation area of punishment / April 1

2. Although there is a record of criminal punishment several times due to the determination of the sentence of punishment, it is true that the defendant's liability to commit the crime of this case is not easy, but it seems that the damage assessment of the victim was reasonable at the time of the crime of this case.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and runs in depth, and the details of the previous 112 declaration, the defendant's argument that he committed the instant crime only when he committed the instant crime on behalf of the defendant's family members, and that he did not plan the additional crime, is credibility.