2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

The Defendant came to know as a member of the Internet carpet “D” group with the victim C (nive, 37 years of age). On August 1, 2012, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the above Internet carpets are drinking first at the above Internet carpets meeting.

On August 2, 2012, the Defendant came to know at the above Internet carpet group in Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 104 Dong 406, the new wall’s residence, which was at night prior to the day before the said residence, and went to the above residence, and explicitly demanded the Defendant to leave the house, and opened the door door door door in order to leave the said residence. However, the Defendant was able to force the victims to see their demand and close the door, and detained the victims for about 40 minutes in the above residence, and the victims frighted to fright out of the above residence in order to leave the said residence, thereby causing the victims to suffer injury, such as bones, etc. requiring approximately three weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution against C;

1. Application of an injury diagnosis certificate, each investigation report, and statutes governing field photographs;

1. The first sentence of Article 281 (1) and Article 276 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., conditions of favorable sentencing among the following reasons for sentencing):

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (refluence of sentencing conditions, etc. favorable to the reasons for sentencing) is that the victim suffered from the instant crime. However, there is a significant number of sufferings due to the instant crime. However, the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected, and the victim did not force the Defendant’s apartment, and the victim did not have any coercion during the process of leaving the Defendant’s apartment, and did not exercise any strong tangible power or threat to the victim in the course of detention, and the Defendant agreed with the victim.