A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:49 on July 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s front of the vehicle in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the vehicle in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle; (b) obstructed the victim’s vehicle with the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the vehicle; and (c) drack the victim’s vehicle in front of the vehicle in the Defendant’s vehicle with the Defendant’s vehicle; and (d) drick, which is a dangerous object at the between the vehicle between the Defendant and the vehicle of the Defendant, was exposed to the victim as a knife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness D;

1. Grade D of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing vehicle photographs;

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

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

1. Some of the crimes are denied to the effect that the defendant did not threaten the victim by Raber. However, considering the fact that the defendant obstructed the victim's vehicle at his own car and then threatened the victim with the knife by the Raber victim, the defendant consistently stated to the effect that he did not cut the knife in his knife and sent the knife in his knife at the troke, the defendant did not discover the knife in his knife at the nife at the nife of his knife after the crime was committed, it was found that the knife was not discovered at the nife at the nife of his knife, only the knife was discovered, and that it was very exceptional to keep the knife at the time.

The victim made a statement to the effect that she was her wife and the victim was her wife, and that she was her wife, and that the act of notifying harm in the crime of intimidation is ordinarily based on ordinary language, but as such, it may give notice of harm and injury as a result of the case may be.