1. On October 3, 2012, the Defendant threatened the victim with the threat of “the victim, who had taken the part in the field of crypted intellectual disability 1 in Pyeongtaek-si E (the age of 23) at the “F” store operated by the victim D(the age of 23) with a large amount of care,” on October 3, 2012, on the ground that the victim, who had taken the part in the field of crypted from the victim D(the age of 16:00, has provided the large amount of support.”

2. On March 14, 2013, at the same place as Paragraph 1, around 07:10 on March 14, 2013, the Defendant, who committed the crime of March 14, 2013, threatened the victim with a threat, such as: (a) the Defendant and the victim D (23 years of age) who was the Defendant and Madern with his face, provokinging the Defendant’s drinking into the victim’s eye; and (b) the Defendant’s drinking in the front of the victim’s eye; and (c) the Defendant’s voice “the death of his parents, death of his son and her seat kick.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements consistent with witness E and G in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Statements consistent with part of the facts constituting the offense of the witness I in the third protocol of the trial and the fifth protocol of the trial;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes that contain some statements concerning the accused in the prosecution examination protocol;

1. Relevant Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes, asserts that there is no fact that the defendant made a victim's verbal abuse such as the statement of facts constituting the crime. The witness's testimony adopted as evidence of guilt is merely the victim's mother-friendly E's statement, which had a good appraisal against the defendant, or the contents of harm from E, and thus, it cannot be recognized as credibility

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, are the main witness of this case.