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

At around 15:00 on February 1, 2019, the Defendant: (a) stated knife (the total length of 34cc and 20.5cm in the indictment) as 23cc in the knife (Evidence No. 9) which is a dangerous object in order to raise an objection against the non-payment of insurance compensation due to the U.S. operation in D building managed by the victim C in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul; (b) however, the knife length of 20.5cm in the indictment, but appears to have 20.5cm in the image of the knife (Evidence No. 9). Since it is determined that even if the knife length is recognized as 20.5cm, there is no concern that it might be any substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of his/her defense right, the Defendant carried it in his/her inner wall and invaded it through the entrance.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous things and intruded on the structure managed by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of C and F;

1. A criminal investigation report (CCTV image verification report), and a CCTV image shield screen;

1. Protocols of seizure and list of seizure (Evidence Nos. 4, 5);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of blades;

1. Articles 320 and 319 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. According to the records on determination of the Defendant’s claim of mental disability under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, it is recognized that the Defendant was subject to pharmacologic treatment due to anti-culatory cancer in 2015, and thereafter, after being subject to pulse treatment by means of anti-culatory cancer treatment and depression during the time of the instant crime.

However, in light of the motive, means and methods of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the Defendant does not seem to have weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

We cannot accept the above assertion.

The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing carries a knife in order to demand the employee in charge of insurance company to pay insurance money.