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

The defendant is a basic recipient residing in Sungnam-si, and the victim D (V, 31) is a person in charge of social welfare in the E-gu office in the Gyeonggi-si.

On June 22, 2016, the Defendant, at the above E-gu Social Welfare and Counseling Office of the E-gu Seoul city F around 10:00, went to the victim for transition (11cm in length of the knive day) which is a dangerous object carried by the Defendant, i.e., why the phone call was cut off first among the telephone calls at the above E-gu Social Welfare and Counseling Office of the E-gu Seoul city.

As above, the Defendant threatened the victim to interfere with legitimate performance of duties, such as civil petition counseling services.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (Securing and analyzingCCTV images);

1. Relevant Article 144(1) and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] Article 48(1)1 of the same Act shall be determined as the order, taking into account the following factors: (a) the mitigation area of category 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties/Compulsory Performance of Duties) [Special Mitigation] [Special Mitigation] no longer has the same criminal record; (b) the circumstances leading to the crime; (c) the details leading to the crime; (d) the victim’s failure to punish; and (d