2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

At around 03:15 on January 3, 2014, the Defendant expressed to the Defendant that “I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I am ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambre, I ambling, I ambre, I ambre, I ambling, I ambre, I ambre.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act and Selection of Punishment for the Crime. Article 311 (Selection of Fine)

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On January 3, 2014, at around 03:15, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim by stating that “a police officer, who reported the assault from H and I to H and I, reported the assault from the said 112 in front of the studal of the studal of the Daejeon Pungdong-gu B, was aware of the details of the damage, etc. against G, while the police officer called out, “a third-party relationship with G. A. A. Doing so, we need to see that it is good.”

2. The crime of intimidation is a crime not prosecuted against the victim’s express intent (Article 283(1) and (3) of the Criminal Act). Since the victim G expressed his/her intent not to prosecute the defendant on September 19, 2014 after the prosecution of this case, the victim G expressed his/her intention not to prosecute the defendant. Thus, the prosecution against the above intimidation is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.