A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On October 8, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of conflict at the source of guard method, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence at the Suwon Detention House on December 28, 2015.

"2018 Highest 68" Defendant: (a) 19:50 on November 23, 2017, the Defendant: (b) opened a hand room in Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (c) on the top of the said car; (d) on the part of the victim C’s passenger car from the Gtel parking lot in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si; and (d) opened a hand room in the middle of bankruptcy in Gangnam-gu, Seoul; and (d) 1.6 billion won on the part of the victim and one wall in the market value of 50,000 won on the part of the victim.

In addition, the property owned by the victim was stolen in an amount equivalent to 16.5 million won.

On October 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) boarded 23:50 on October 19, 2017, the 2018 upper end 761, the Defendant: (b) boarded a taxi as a passenger operated by the victim D; (c) seated on the back seat; (d) moved front of the back seat on the front road of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si E, the purpose of which is to move; and (e) throw over the victim’s trial line; and (e) cut off with the left hand, the Defendant 135,00 won in cash that the victim puts the front door of the driver’s seat even in the receipt space.

Summary of Evidence

"2018 Highest 68"

1. Each legal statement of witness C, F and G;

1. Previous convictions: A statement of inquiry about criminal history, investigation report (prior convictions and attachment of repeated crimes), judgment text, etc. [The credibility of each of the above witnesses’ statements appears to be high, and otherwise, it is difficult to find out circumstances in which the victimized person is not the defendant or the police witness is able to make a false statement.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that even if the crime is recognized, the attempted crime is not excessive.

However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant taken the wall from the door room.

In view of the location where a wall and a check are found, the size of a wall, etc., the defendant had already been under the control of his own real force.

Since it is reasonable to view the above argument, it is also accepted.