A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 7, 2019, at around 11:55, the Defendant: (a) 11:55, the victim C (year 50) operated in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government mobile phone store; and (b) the victim, who was prepared in advance, sold the mobile phone, she salkeded with a calculous weapon ( approximately 32 cm in total length, approximately 20 cm in length) with a calculous weapon, which was a deadly weapon for the reason that the victim sold the mobile phone salked with a calculous weapon; and (c) threatened the victim with a calculous weapon, as the victim’s side salked with a calculous weapon, and she threatened the victim with a 50,000 won in cash.”

Accordingly, the defendant took a deadly weapon in return for the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (verification of CCTV at the scene of occurrence);

1. Article 334 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Articles 334 (1) and 333 of the Criminal Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the choice of limited imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act. Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The proviso of Article 62-2(1) and (2) of the Probation Criminal Act (the proviso of Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a prosecutor seeks to confiscate seized evidence No. 1, and the owner of the above seized articles is the defendant. However, according to the records of this case, the above seized articles are installed at the restaurant located within the above public notice board so that the operator of the public notice board in which the defendant resides can use them by his/her resident, and are deemed to belong to the above public notice board operator. The evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the above seized articles constitute “goods not owned by any person other than the criminal person.” Accordingly, the confiscation of the seized articles is not pronounced). The reason for sentencing.

1. Legal penalty;