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

On July 20, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for intimidation on existence at Jeju District Court, and completed the execution of the said sentence in the Jeju Correctional Institution on January 10, 2017, and on February 6, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months for the same crime in the said court on February 6, 2018, and completed the execution of the said sentence on June 26, 2019.

At around 17:30 on June 18, 2020, the Defendant requested the victim to continue drinking in a room where the Defendant and the her mother victim C (the 69-year-old age) living together with the Defendant (the 69-year-old age) continued drinking in a room where the Defendant was living together, and the victim was able to take a better drinking. However, the Defendant was able to have the part of the breath of the breath’s breath, where the breath of the breath’s breath of the breath’s boom which

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed one of the 60,000 won of the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing of the provisional payment order is that the Defendant, as indicated in the criminal records in the judgment of the court below, was punished twice for the crime of intimidation on existence against the mother and child, but he again took a behavior during the period of repeated crime and frightencing him.

However, the crime of this case was committed on the floor by gathering a boomed rice from her mother to her tending from her mother, and was broken down with a part of her boomed booming. It is not a crime intended for her mother-child, but is not more serious than a crime subject to punishment for a sentence imposed.

Most of all, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect his mistake in this court, and he will not make it again in the future.

In addition, the victim, who is the mother of the defendant, submitted a written agreement to the defendant in this case, unlike the case where the defendant was punished for punishment.