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 May 5, 2016, at around 04:02, the Defendant pretended to be a customer at the D convenience store in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Incheon, and moved to the victim E (V, 25 years of age) who is an employee of the place of such store, as a hand prepared in advance, approximately 20cm in the length of the knife (20cm in length of the knife) of the knife to the victim.

Since the victim could not resist against the victim by threatening the victim, 490,000 won in cash was deducted from the small credit cooperative located in the place where the victim failed to report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Each investigation report (case concerning the details of the detection of a deadly weapon, investigation of CCTV on-site, details of arrest of a suspect, cases concerning the amount of damage, etc.) and the application of statutes on the attached data;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 334 (2) and (1) and 333 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed a crime of forcibly taking cash KRW 4.90,000 by threatening the victim to a convenience store in which the victim, who is female employee, had been married during the new wall time zone.

The above crime by Defendant Appellant is very interview and dangerous in light of the method and circumstances of the crime, and it is reasonable to punish Defendant Appellant with severe punishment corresponding to the nature of the crime.

However, after the crime of this case was committed, the defendant agreed with the victim, the convenience store owner and the original owner, and he does not want the punishment against the defendant; the defendant has no obvious record of crime other than being sentenced to suspended execution once for the larceny 15 years prior to the crime of this case; and the defendant's poor wife is part of the motive of the crime of this case.