A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 21:20 on July 12, 2015, on the ground that the Defendant did not grant the victim D (37 cm) who resides at the lower house of the Defendant located in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) with approximately 20 cm (20 cm in length of the blade), which is a dangerous object, to the Defendant, and discarded the amount of money to the Defendant.

Cr. Sicker and brush.

“.....”

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

[The facts charged was appropriately revised to the extent that it is deemed that there is no concern about the defendant's exercise of the right of defense.]

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, F, and G in each part;

1. Part of each police statement protocol against D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording files at the time of reporting on site photographs, one copy of a knife photograph, and 112;

1. Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (or choice of imprisonment);

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

1. The following circumstances, which can be known by the aforementioned evidence for conviction and sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order, namely, ① the victim D, unlike the statement made by investigation agency, appears to be a knife and the victim F and G upon receiving the time of the instant case and the report made by investigation agency, and the police officer F and G were dispatched, but it seems to have been enormously known that the victim was locked

Unlike the statement of investigation agency, E, the owner of the house reported 112 at the time of the instant case, was citing the Defendant’s speech at the time of the instant case, but was not knife.

However, all of these statements are acknowledged by the Defendant at the time, and ② the victim, consistently from the investigation agency to this court, consistently with the principle from the investigation agency to the time of this court, would die of the victim and die of himself.

the Commission.

In this court, E also stated that there was the defendant who cited the victim's words and the victim's right before the victim's protection.