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

The defendant, who is the husband of the victim C, is a partner of the same company as D, has brought a dispute over the issue within the company. On March 23, 2015, the defendant was called on the victim's phone at the same time as the victim's husband, and "D only has the company."

We will do so.

In order for the above victim to verify the contents of this case, the victim sought a telephone again from the defendant, and "I am a hiding about D."

“Intimidating the said victim”, the said victim was threatened.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion in the recording book, recording files, and the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that "the contents of the defendant's statement cannot be deemed sufficient to cause fear to the general public from an objective point of view, and thus does not constitute a "Intimidation" in the crime of intimidation. It is not acknowledged that the defendant's expression of the defendant's statement is merely an expression of emotional abusive or temporary labor, and thus "

See the purport of “......”

According to the above evidence, it is acknowledged that the defendant made a statement as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, and the above statement of the defendant is generally accepted as a whole, and since the defendant's statement is "to prevent the defendant from going to the company by her husband C" as a whole, it constitutes "Intimidation" in the crime of intimidation as a threat of harm to the extent that may cause a person to feel a fear. In light of the above circumstances of the statement and the relation between the defendant and D at that time, it is difficult to see that the defendant's statement is merely an expression of a simple emotional desire or a temporary labor union, and therefore, it is also recognized as "act of intimidation" in the crime of intimidation.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 283(1) of the choice of punishment (a punishment.