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

The defendant is married between the victim C(M, 31 years of age) of the nationality of Thailand and the married couple(M, 31 years of age) over five years.

At around 14:30 on November 201, 2014, the Defendant: (a) placed the knife in the knife (18cc in knife length, 30cc in knife) with a knife (18cc in knife length, 30cc in knife) that was dangerous to the knife in the knife of the knife on the knife on the knife, and threatened the victim with a knife, such as "the knife" and "the knife" and "the knife" and "the knife" of the knife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of criminal implements;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the judgment dismissing public prosecution should be rendered on the ground that the victim had expressed his/her intention not to punish him/her after instituting a public prosecution on the premise that the crime of this case falls under

However, Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which applies to the crime of this case, provides that a person who commits a crime listed in Article 2(1) of the above Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles shall be subject to aggravated punishment, and does not have any provision regarding the application of Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act, and thus, Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act cannot be applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4658, Jul. 24, 2008). Thus, the above assertion is rejected

The reason for sentencing is in light of the risk of the crime of this case.