Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

On August 9, 2018, from around 14:00 to 11:25 of the same month, the Defendant visited the open opening opening room opened by the victim B (the name, the 15-year old age) and contacted the victim with the victim on February 12, 2018, and threatened the victim with the sexual intercourse with the victim on or around February 12, 2018, the Defendant threatened the victim with the sexual intercourse. Although there was no sexually related video, the Defendant, despite the absence of sexually related video, expressed the victim’s attitude that “I have known that I had a sexually related videophone, I have known that I had it known that I had to go back with our related video phone. I have requested to do so at the last time, but I have sold the video upon the request of the victim.”

As a result, the defendant attempted to let the victim frighten, who frighten, take a shower and have a sexual intercourse with the defendant again, do so without any legal obligation. However, the victim refused to do so and reported the defendant to the police, but failed to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The written statement made by the police against B;

1. Each internal investigation report and investigation report;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A report on the analysis of digital evidence;

1. Application of C.C. message content legislation

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 324-5 and 324 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 324-5 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 48(1) of the Confiscation Criminal Act threatens a victim who had sexual intercourse with the victim at a high school school or at the conference with a view to re-convening or having sexual intercourses with the victim at around six (6) months prior to the Defendant’s committing the crime of this case, and in which the victim did not take a face of the sexual intercourse with the victim prior to the occurrence of the video, thereby threatening the victim as if he had spreaded the video taken at the time of the previous sexual intercourse, even though the video did not take a face of the sexual intercourse with the victim.