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

On May 26, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution due to defamation in the Incheon District Court, and the judgment was finalized on June 3, 2017.

Before the instant case, the Defendant has been under the right to cultivate the dry field in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, the victims C (the age of 48) and the dry field.

1. Around October 3, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around October 17:15, 2016, at the dry field located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, brought a threat to the victim by driving the Trackter, which was a dangerous object to the victim, at the entrance of the farm land in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, and allowing the victim to flee.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

2. The Defendant damaged property, at the time, and at the place specified in paragraph 1, the market value of the victim C installed as set out in paragraph 1, was destroyed by the bitter and the bitter was destroyed by the bitter.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous records: Results of case search, application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each judgment;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 284, 283(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel in the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the part concerning special intimidation in the instant charges constituted a justifiable act for the preservation of farmland owned by the Defendant in the wire-ferry. However, such an act of the Defendant cannot be deemed as a considerable means to achieve the purpose of the Defendant. The benefit of the Defendant’s protection is larger than the benefit of infringement.

capital.