A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

In the state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the proof of alcohol, etc., the Defendant, around August 4, 2016, 201: (a) 4:30 on August 4, 2016, 200: (b) 5:30, 56 years of age, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5,

“Cedled fish,” and at the same time, threatened the victim as a hacker.

Accordingly, the defendant carried a fish, which is a dangerous object, and expressed the attitude that the defendant seems to inflict any harm on the victim's body, and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each report on internal investigation:

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( mentally and physically weak persons) of the Criminal Act to be mitigated by law;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Consideration of favorable circumstances among the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc., and Article 44-2 of the Medical Care, etc. Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that they were dead as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, or that salted fish did not pose a threat to the victim as stated in the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not acceptable, as it is acknowledged without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant carried with himself the salted fish, which is a dangerous object, as stated in the judgment of the court below, and threatened the victim.

A. The victim has consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court that “the defendant threatened with the sporessing, sporesing, and sporesing, with a spores,” and the above.