A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 21, 2018, at around 04:15, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim C (at the age of 60) who was the wife in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, but was able to visit the room by disregarding the Defendant under the influence of alcohol; (b) threatened the victim, “Before the death and death,” and (c) attempted to cut the victim’s knife with the electric brake, which is an object dangerous to the outside of the room, and using it, and cut the victim’s knife by using it; and (d) expressed the victim’s desire to “I will well throw away the knife and bridge”; and (e) expressed the victim’s desire to “I will well throw away the knife the knife and bridge.”

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to C and D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. On-site dispatch reports;

1. A photograph of the criminal tool;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to visiting miscellaneous photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of intimidation to carry dangerous articles and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for observation of protection;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (six months to one year and six months) of the recommended punishment (Habitual, repeated, and special intimidation) (the person subject to special sentencing) is nonexistent;

2. Circumstances disadvantageous to the determination of sentence: The crime of this case is committed by the defendant while intending to cut off the knife by visiting the knife, and is highly likely to pose a threat to the victim, and the method of the crime is heavy.

In 2015, the Defendant re-offending the same method in the same way, even though he had been subjected to a disposition of home protection case by threatening the victim with the kitchen knife.

The degree of damage suffered by the victim has not been received from the damaged person and the damage is not significant.

The defendant is wrong.