Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a security guard who manages a construction site in Heung-gu C, and the users of the Dong-gu indoor gymnasium in the vicinity parked at the entrance of the construction site and set the entrance of the construction site to prevent the victims from entering the construction site.

On November 6, 2016, the Defendant used excessive excess as dangerous goods at E management offices located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si, D on November 6, 2016, and used the victim F (n, 60 years of age) to “I wish to be a parking problem;

By stating that knife is a solitary place, it was committed as if it would inflict harm on the life and body of the victim by taking the attitude of knifeing the victim with a knife.

The defendant continued to possess the above excessive charges and continued to enter the head of the indoor Edton in the next place of the above management office, and was waiting to do an election campaign at that place, the above excessive charges, which are dangerous articles, for the victim G (49 tax) who had been waiting to do so; and

In the phrase of "absing down according to the mother's attitude", the victim was committed as if he would inflict any harm on the victim's life and body.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous articles and threatened victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by capturing CCTV images;

1. Article 284 of the Criminal Act, Articles 283 (1) and 283 of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. It is true that the defendant's liability for the crime of this case is not easy considering the risk that the reason for sentencing of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order was potential for the crime of this case.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes his own crime as a substitute and reflects his depth, and there are some circumstances to consider the background of the crime in this case.