Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against intimidation is dismissed.

The defendant is the victim C and is the husband and wife, and is in divorce litigation.

On September 27, 2014, the Defendant damaged the Defendant’s house located in D apartment at the time of 04:00 on September 27, 2014, in a knife with the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the closure of each letter message;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The part dismissing the prosecution pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the first offender, the defendant is the first offender, the crime of this case is against the defendant, the defendant and the victim are causing the crime of this case while the defendant and the victim are in dispute of infertility, the marital relationship between the defendant and the victim was organized at present, and the victim does not want punishment against the defendant) of the suspended sentence

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: on October 31, 2014, the Defendant: (a) calls from the Defendant’s friendship house located in Daegu Suwon-gu E on October 10:57 to the victim C; and (b) “Is up-to-be gold, sp-befing, cut off, and throw off knife with flaf, and throw away to the fnife bag; (c)

The victim expressed his attitude that knife knife knife knife knife with knife and knife the body of the victim.

2. This is a crime falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the records of this case, the victim can recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on January 6, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, according to Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, this case is held.