[Criminal Power] On February 20, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crime, etc.) at the Seoul Central District Court on February 20, 2013, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on

【Criminal Facts】

At around 18:00 on May 2, 2013, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, expressed the victim’s attitude that “I am special, I am special, because I am special, I am special, I am special, because I am special, I am special, because I am special, I am special, because I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, I am special, we am special, we am special. I am special, we am special. I am special, we am special, we am special, we am special, and we am special, we am special, we am special.........

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Investigation report by the prosecution (to hear victim's D telephone statements);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records and other inquiries; A; a copy of the judgment (2012 high-liability 1431); and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report criminal investigations by the prosecution (verification of the stay of execution of a suspect);

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts

1. The defendant asserts that even though he had expressed the victim's abusive language, he did not state that he did not state that he did not go beyond four times, and that he did not state that he did not “I will go beyond four times,” and that he did not state his attitude that he would have been able to go at the time, and that he did not threaten the victim.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, i.e., the victim D consistently with the investigative agency, and the Defendant continued to enter the same as the above facts constituting the crime.