The evidence No. 61 of the pressure of Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, which was seized, No. 61 of the 2013.

[Attachment] On August 19, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment for robbery, rape, etc. at the Daejeon High Court, and the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence on December 28, 2012 at the Net Prison.

【Criminal Facts】

피고인은 2012. 12. 28.경 위와 같이 출소한 후 아내인 피해자 D(여, 47세)를 찾아가 돈이 떨어졌으니 하룻밤을 재워달라고 부탁하였으나 피해자가 이를 거절하며 이혼을 요구하자 피해자에게 만나는 남자가 생겼다고 의심하면서 피해자를 협박하기로 마음먹었다.

From February 27, 2013, the Defendant waited for D in the vicinity of the foregoing E-house and threatened D with D by telephone, and the victim did not take care of, around March 1, 2013, the Defendant purchased blades (27 cm in total length, 13 cm in length) in the market located on the surface of the above E-house, and stored the knife in the examination tape on several occasions, and then concealed the knife part in the front end of the present time, and thereafter, up to the time of arrest by the police officer called for as a report by residents around March 17:50, 2013, the Defendant started D above the convenience point in the vicinity of the said E-house.

Accordingly, the defendant carried a knife, which is a deadly weapon that might be used in violence without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Records of seizure and the list;

1. Each photograph;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment of written judgments);

1. Article 7 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Criminal Crimes and the Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act (hereinafter “Confiscation”) committed a crime highly likely to disrupt legal order in light of the fact that the Defendant was punished as a violent crime and carried a deadly weapon without justifiable reason, even though he was during the period of repeated crime.

However, it is agreed with the victim, and the direct damage caused by the possession of the deadly weapons of this case has not occurred, and the defendant has divided his mistake.