A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 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

On May 29, 2017, the Defendant, at the Nuriter Park at around 12, 2017, was under the influence of alcohol, by acting in the victim B (5 years), and the victim C (49 years old), who was a dangerous object prior to being possessed by the victim C (49 years old), and by acting in the victim, as the victim’s life and body harm was inflicted on the victim’s life and body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Reporting on the arrest of a case;

1. Protocols of seizure, list of seizure and evidence of seizure;

1. Photographss related to (safics of seized objects, victim's photograph, Defendant's photograph, etc.) and photographs and field photographs of CCTV images taken;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each internal investigation report (including internal investigation and change of the name of a crime) and investigation report (including the reasons why the written statement of a victim C was not prepared);

1. Articles 284 and 283 (1) (a point of special intimidation) of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended sentence] the basic area (six months to one year and six months) of the sentencing guidelines (any person who has no special sentencing factor)

2. The crime of this case, which was sentenced to punishment, was committed by the Defendant citing the writing that is a dangerous object under the influence of alcohol and by threatening the victims. The nature of the crime was bad in that it could cause a serious risk, and even if the mental suffering of the victim B caused the instant crime, the damage was not recovered, and the Defendant was already punished several times due to the crime of injury in 2010, and in particular, the Defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 2 million due to the crime of injury in 2010, and a fine of KRW 1.5 million due to the crime of interference with the business in 2010, and the crime of interference with the business in 2013.