A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 2016, the Defendant: (a) had a kitchen with the Defendant’s wife C (the age of 41) in the Defendant’s house, which was located in B at the time of Chungcheongnamsan-si, the day-to-day, the day-to-day, the day-to-day, the day-to-day, the day-to-day, the day-to-day, the day-the-day, the day-to-day, the day-to-day, the day-the-day, the day-to-day, the day-to-day, the day-to-day

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim by carrying a kitchen, which is a dangerous thing.

2. On August 20, 2016, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in the Defendant’s house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, who sought to be punished for suffering of the victim and the victim with chemical pesticides while disputing the issue of loan with the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant carried a pesticide, a dangerous object, and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A criminal complaint and a statement of the principal;

1. Medical records;

1. Each police statement of C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to statements of victims;

1. Relevant Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of probation and community service order

1. In relation to paragraph (1) of the holding of the claim, the Defendant is dissatisfied with the victim, and the Defendant is a kitchen knife with the kitchen knife and the floor of the living room. However, the Defendant does not have any knife with the victim.

In relation to Paragraph 2 of the ruling, the pesticide was about to see the inside.

There is no fact that the victim himself has discussed about agrochemicals on his own, and there is no fact that the defendant attempted to threaten the victim to drink agrochemicals.

2. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the judgment, the evidence duly adopted and examined, the Defendant respective victims as stated in its reasoning.