Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A around December 2, 2015, on the grounds that, at the time of Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Japan-si, and the first floor, Defendant B, through his employee, threatened the victim with “to report illegal acts to the police” to the victim, thereby making the victim go to a bad business. At around 01:00 on August 2, 2016, Defendant B, who was in the neighborhood, by threatening the victim to “to report illegal acts to the police”, became the Defendant B, who was in the vicinity.

Defendant

B, upon arrival in the above car page, Defendant A discovered that he is bad and sound due to the victim, and released the beer’s disease on the Kapetter, and broken it to the Kaminter, and then Defendant A expressed that “I am hicker and hicker hicker hicker,” and Defendant A hicked four glass residues on the table, which the victim hicked, to sit to the victim, and Defendant A expressed that “I hicker hicker hicker hicker hicker hicker hicker hicker hicker hicked to the victim, and I hicked that “I am hicker hicker hicker hicker hicker hicker hicker hicked to the victim.”

As a result, the Defendants jointly expressed their attitude that they would inflict any harm on the body of the victims, and threatened the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the police statement protocol to G;

1. Article 2 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution appears to have undergone considerable pain, including interference with business, and Defendant B committed the instant crime during the period of probation.