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

On June 20, 2013, at around 04:35, the Defendant: (a) opened the paths of the victim E and F, and the victim E and F, in the front of the Geum-gu, Busan, F, G, which was obvious to face the vehicle of the Defendant’s operation; and (b) called the victim E, “if he were to drink, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f,” and (c) said G, “I f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Then, the Defendant, while putting the hacker, which is a dangerous object in the string line of the Defendant’s vehicle, threatened the victim E with the hacker’s hacker by taking the hacker hacker’s bath, continued to have the victim E hack the hacker’s hacker in which treatment days is flick, and the victim E’s cellular phone (el hacker) and the victim F’s cellular phone (trile hackS) that the Defendant was seeking to report the Defendant’s act, caused the victim E hacker’s hacker to hack the floor.

Accordingly, the defendant, carrying dangerous articles, threatened the victim E, injured the victim E, and damaged the victims' property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Photographs (influence, deadly weapons, etc.);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (specific suspects);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense: Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act: Destruction of property under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act: Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (to the extent that the long-term punishment for each crime is aggregated);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and victims.