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

From March 2014, the Defendant re-drawed with the victim D (Influent, 198) from around March 2014, and re-divated with the Vietnam during the teaching period, and completely decided around December 2015.

1. The Defendant, on March 2015, is the victim’s hedging.

On the ground that the Defendant’s home located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul E and 101 Dong 602 on March 2015, 2015 used the Defendant’s mobile phone using the Defendant’s Mabberra at around 06:36 on March 2015, and used the Defendant’s Mabber’s mobile phone “as he was sent to the Defendant, who was her one day, and was her mother, who was hered and her mother,

In addition, it transmitted the text message and the knife photograph that read the victim’s death as seen earlier, and threatened the victim.

2. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant committed a crime on the same grounds as the foregoing 1.3. On July 30, 2015, using the e-mail of the victim using the e-mail of the victim at around 13:16 Franchising places on July 30, 2015, with the e-mail of the victim “on the e-mail of the victim who did not refuse to do so, with multiple snow in front of that person, and the thickness before the (victim);

In the same day, the victim’s e-mail “Satching satisfy in that place,” “Satching without gas pipes after D D D Ne, satching with satisfying, and the body in the inside of the country,” and “Satching or well-fating satisfying” in the victim’s e-mail in the same manner at around 20:28 of the same day, even if the victim’s e-mail falls within the victim’s e-mail by means of around 20:28 of the same day, the victim’s e-mail can not be satched anywhere any kind of fating fat, so even if the fats at D D E-N sat is to die, so they cannot

within the territory of

I transmitted each content of "I see direct confirmation within this day," and threatened the victim.

3. On August 2015, the Defendant: (a) used the instant Mesenger’s mobile phone before the victim’s company located in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul, around August 2015, for the same reasons as the foregoing 1.3; (b) the Defendant used the Meger’s Mesenger’s Meger’s Meger’s Meger’s Meger’s Meger’s Meger’s Meger’s Meger’s Meger’s Meger’s Mesenger’s Mesen