A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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

On October 5, 2013, at around 00:05, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol at the “Dmoel” located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Defendant: (b) laid the beer’s disease in the corridor without any justifiable reason; (c) opened a door to several times by having the victim E (the age of 46) open a door to the victim; and (d) moved the beer’s disease, which is a dangerous object, into the part above the part of the victim’s neck, and said, “I want to be killed, I are only Ra, Nine, Women’s soon as soon as possible.”

Since then, the Defendant: (a) thrown away a shoulder bottle while escaping out of Korea; (b) requested the victim who driven away from the Defendant to drink drinking water, and (c) flown drinking water with the victim as well as the victim’s nearby convenience store, and (d) flown drinking water, which was a dangerous object called “this brush bomer,” was faced with the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim with his attitude that seems to inflict bodily harm on the victim with dangerous things.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E police statement;

1. E statements;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

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

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution was in a state of mental and physical disability where his behavior was not memoryd at all because he was drunk at the time of this case.

However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime was committed, it appears that the Defendant had weak ability or intent to discern things under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and thus, the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing.