If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

On May 2, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on May 30, 2015 by imprisonment with prison labor and six months, due to a false accusation, etc. from the Incheon District Court Branch Branch, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 30, 2015.

1. On February 23, 2016, the Defendant sent a mobile phone text message stating that “When you change how you will live in DNA behavior or how you can live in from E, it will continue to be a loss.” On February 23, 2016, the Defendant sent a mobile phone text message to the victim D (Woo 49 years of age).

2. The Defendant, at around 11 April 201, 2016, was unable to carry the victim’s wind with the Defendant at a non-fluorous place, where “The Defendant was unable to find the Defendant’s husband at one time due to the defect of two years of her mother-gu and one of the husbands of the sea F.

c) transmit a mobile phone text message containing “”;

3. On April 19, 2016, at around 09:32, the Defendant sent the victim’s cell phone text messages, such as “I wish to solve this problem and directly find it in the scarde house,” “I do not keep only once flap and only once flap,” and “I do not keep only once flap and flap,” and “I kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn k in front of the complete distance.”

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim three times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Two-time statements made to D by the police;

1. Decision-making 315 High Court Order 2015 High Court Decision;

1. The photograph of a text message screen (62, 99, 100 pages of investigation records);

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes by inquiry results such as criminal history;

1. Relevant Article 283 of the Criminal Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the custody of the workhouse (the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of this case constitutes a kind of abusive or pinoous expression that expresses a serious emotional testimony, but the Defendant’s text message reads a kind of abusive or pino, which is the Defendant’s will, “the Defendant’s will,” and “the Defendant’s wind.”