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

1. Around February 24, 2015, the Defendant threatened the victim with the victim’s speech that the victim D(the age of 63) was “A satisfying in the sea” at a village conference at the time of the village conference at the time of influence C, 102 Dong 1004 on February 24, 2015, and that “A satisfying to die for about 30 minutes from the phone,” and “A satisfying to die within 30 minutes.”

2. On February 24, 2015, at around 21:00, the Defendant: (a) opened and entered the gate in front of the house of the victim D, E, and (b) opened the gate before the string of the string door; (c) opened the string door in front of the string door; and (d) opened the 20cm door in front of the string door, the string part of the victim’s wifeF opened the string door in front of the string door, and intruded the victim’s dwelling by entering the string door after going through the string door.

3. The injured Defendant opened the front door at the same time and at the same time as above in the above paragraph 2, and took the face part of the victim F in front of the front of the front door, and had the victim face the left part of the front door.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the snow grass and open room around the snow that require treatment for about two weeks.

4. The Defendant damaged the damage of property by entering the victim D’s house at the same time and place as the above 2 paragraph (2), and then making a visit to the said place to the extent that the amount of the visit owned by the victim would be equivalent to 2.70,000 won of the repair cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and D;

1. A medical certificate of injury and a medical certificate;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of a photo of the upper part and the damaged part) (The defendant asserted that it is not a crime of intrusion because he went to his house because he was the victim's entering the house, but it is not possible to recognize the fact that the victim allowed him to enter the house, and at least it is recognized that he intrudes upon his residence against the victim's wife F's will living together with the victim, and thus the defendant's argument is rejected).