The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Gwangju High Court on December 23, 2014 and completed the execution of the sentence on August 15, 2016 at the former Jeju District Court on August 15, 2016.

[Criminal Facts]

1. On October 11, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of four million won for one year at the Jeonju District Court on the grounds of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (defluence, etc.) with a prison relationship between the victim C (58 years) and society, and a previous injury was inflicted upon the victim, and the victim was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of four million won. On December 23, 2014, the case in which the victim threatened the victim who did not cause any criminal agreement was detained, and was discharged from prison at the Jeonju District Court of Gwangju on December 23, 2014, and was discharged from prison on August 15, 2016.

The Defendant, upon receiving a sentence due to the report of the victimized person, had the injured person frightened with the victim with the phone call, and had the injured person frighted.

A. On September 19, 2016, the Defendant sent a phone call to the victim C, and threatened the victim by saying, “In fluenently, fluently, fluently, fluently, fluently, fluently, fluent at a funeral funeral room, fluent off, D, and two-year medical care.”

B. On September 27, 2016, the Defendant sent a phone call to the victim C at a 01:31 on a closed spot, and, if so, knew that the Defendant sent it to the victim C, where he did not want to do so.

“Intimidating the victim”, the victim was threatened.

(c)

On November 7, 2016, 2016, the Defendant sent a phone to the victim C, thereby threateninging the victim “I can see her fluencing with a funeral room D and her fluencing him, she would not her fluencing him her, she would fluencing him her, she would fluencing him her, she would her fluencing him her, D, her and her in the court.”

As a result, the defendant has committed three times the purpose of retaliation against the provision of investigation proviso, such as criminal complaint, in relation to his criminal case judgment.