If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a space between B (n, 54 years of age) and B.

On November 28, 2014, around 22:00 on November 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was in possession of the victim D of B’s children in front of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, for the reason that the victim was able to adjust the relationship with B by telephone from the previous day to the Defendant; and (b) caused the victim’s injury, such as the definite base, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning B and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of a complaint (including a certificate of injury attached thereto);

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. All the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the age, character and conduct, and environment of the defendant, and the defendant confessions and reflects this part of the crime, and the situation where the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim shall be determined as the same type

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. From October 12, 2014 to December 12, 2012 of the same year, the Defendant violated the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Protection of Information transmitted text messages to the victim’s mobile phone using the Defendant’s mobile phone for the reason that the victim B does not live in the Defendant’s residence from around October 12, 2014 to around December 12, 201, on 87 occasions, including “human children,” and sent text messages to the victim’s mobile phone using the Defendant’s mobile phone. From November 11 of the same year to December 11 of the same year, the Defendant called “Hah, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii Ii, Ii, Ii, Ii

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, made language and sound that arouses fear and apprehension to the victim.