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

On August 8, 2019, the Defendant, at around 05:05, at the Defendant’s residence located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul building B, the Defendant threatened the victim with the victim D (the victim 24 years old), who was her wife, and the victim, who was her drinking, with the victim “I wish to her to her get out of her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers her her her her her her her her her her her

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim by using dangerous things.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Records of seizure and list, and photographs of seized articles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment.

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act to provide community service or attend lectures;

1. The punishment is set as ordered in consideration of various conditions of sentencing, including the following: (a) the repeated reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act: (b) the risk of the act by threatening the victim with a deadly weapon; (c) the fact that the victim has no record of being punished beyond a fine; (d) the confession and reflects the victim; and (e) the victim is not subject to punishment; (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct