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

At around 23:00 on June 12, 2015, the Defendant, at the victim E’s house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and at the same time, threatened the victim by taking into consideration the victim’s house floor at drinking when the victim’s house was able to give appraisal due to the entry into the Eastern-gun, and when the victim was unable to give appraisal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the respective legal statements of witness E and F to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

3. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

4. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bear litigation costs

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, has a low floor as a hand floor at the time, but the Defendant did not either speak as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case or set the floor several times.

Even if such a speech was made, it is merely a simple expression of emotional humiliation or temporary labor, not a threat by notifying the victim of harm.

2. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the former Criminal Act, generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party to the crime. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and degree of friendship.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). The victim and the investigative agency and this court set forth “the Defendant and his wife in their own house around 23:00 on the day of the instant case,” and “the Defendant and their wife have kidddddd, and they sound before the entrance and exit.”

The fluorily fluort fluor.