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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Crimes committed on May 28, 2016;

A. The Defendant, at around 05:30 on May 28, 2016, expressed that this victim C (the age of 81) refers to the Defendant, who is taking a scarpro face and divided the scarpro face into two ways in the protruding-ro in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, as “hyshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

B. At around 06:00 on the same day, the victim D was threatened with D on the ground that the victim D (the 66-year-old age) was frighted in the vicinity of the surrounding sports organization as the foregoing book, and that D was frighted to the victim D, who was frighting to drinking, and that “this fright death was discarded.”

2. around May 30, 2016, the Defendant committed the crime at around 06:0 on May 30, 2016, and around 1-B.

When the victim C re-satisfed at the place described in the port, without any reason, the victim C threatened the victim C by demanding that the victim “befright to die” with drinking with the victim C without any reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the witness D;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each statement of victims;

1. The victims' statements can be believed to have been opened specifically and falsely in their statements, on the grounds that the video act of the accused, the contents of the damage, the response of the victims, and the victim's statements about the situation before and after the crime committed, of the photograph taken by the suspect.

Unlike the contents of the written statement written by the victim C in the police station, the defendant testified that he did not take the desire on May 30, 2016.

However, considering that the above victim's age of 82 years and the above statement was written 12 days after the date of damage, it cannot be said that the above statement lacks credibility compared to the testimony of court.

In addition, while the defendant was able to bring about a dispute with the victim C in the police, he was able to take a bath to him, and on May 30, 2016.