2. 50,000 won where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

On November 19, 2013, from around 19:40 to 20:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) was a person who works in Frona in Pyeongtaek-si building to be pushed off; (b) the victim G (39 years of age and south) who manages the above building on the same day, and (c) the Defendant: (a) stated that “nicks enter a large number of civil petitions due to their low hygiene in bath, so that they can clean clean clean cleaning; (b) the remainder of the froshing with the victim G in the mast in the mast in the course of drinking with the above temporary light and drinking with Fro and returning home with the victim, and (c) made the victim find the knife with the knife by threatening, threatening the victim to die, and having the customer do so at any place without any doubt, thereby hindering the victim’s business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of each statute on witness G, H and I’s respective statutory statements;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of each fine for a crime;

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

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defluence;

A. Around 00:30 on January 31, 2014, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant publicly insultd the victim C (54 years of age), namely, “I am, I am, I am son, I am son, son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son, son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son.”

B. We examine the judgment. The facts charged of this case are crimes falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon a complaint of the victim under Article 312(1) of the same Act. According to the records, the victim C is against the defendant around June 8, 2014, which is after the prosecution of this case.