Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On September 18:20, 2017, the Defendant was unable to receive construction expenses from the actual owner of the building site B in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 7, 2017, and the victim C (46 years old) who is exercising the right of retention photographs himself/herself as a mobile phone, and he/she was “

I see, I see it as it is. I see it, we see it. I see it, with the permission of aper, the other's photograph affixed to it. The hack pipe (120 cm in length, 4.5 cm in diameter) which is a dangerous object in the vicinity, and threatened the victim.

The facts charged in the instant case are “(Omission).” The photographed with a cell phone, and the pipe (120 cm in length, 4.5 cm in diameter) which is a dangerous object in the vicinity is used, and the photograph is not taken.

(e) Shein, dead, and discarded;

The term “intimidating” and thereby threatening him.

“Although it is indicated as “, as seen below in the determination as to the Defendant’s assertion, it is recognized that the Defendant expressed an desire to the effect that the victim should not be taken, but the death shall be discarded.

Inasmuch as it is difficult to recognize the fact that “the facts alleged in the instant facts charged,” the part of the instant facts charged was modified and recognized as committing the same crime as indicated in the judgment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. C’s statement;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Terrorism closure photographs;

1. Application of the USB Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

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

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant merely saw the hack pipe to the lower lower hack, and there is no fact that the Defendant made the phrase “salination of death”.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the Defendant had a pipe towards the victim.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) A victim;