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 10:10 on 23, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the victim E (the 52-year age), who is a restaurant employee, had the victim talked about the order of personnel management of the said company and had the victim talked about the fact.

The Defendant told the Defendant that “the Defendant would have her answer, even if her tear,” and told the Defendant that “the Defendant would have a knife and knife the knife,” and expressed the Defendant’s attitude to her knife the knife and knife the knife, which is a dangerous object in the main room, and her knife the Defendant’s boat.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. Each statement of G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the actual survey report;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the first crime, the contingent crime, the character, conduct and circumstances of crimes, etc. of the defendant), which is suspended from execution;

1. The defendant asserts that Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and the defendant's assertion and judgment as to the above are trying to do harm to carics in carics in the carics in the form of carics while he/she had a dispute with the victim.

Murder, intimidation refers to a threat of harm to cause fears to the other party by making a threat of harm, and a threat of harm in a crime of intimidation may, as a matter of ordinary language, give notice of harm or harm, as the case may be, may be.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5146, Sept. 10, 2009). According to the health stand in the instant case, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s defect in the statement that “the Defendant would have shown the Defendant’s answer even if he was fested with the victim.”