Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

With respect to the fact that the Defendant, who divorced with C on October 26, 2016, was threatened with C by taking excessive steps, which is a dangerous object on March 7, 2017, and found C, the Defendant’s access to the victim’s residence within 100 meters from the Chuncheon District Court until the victim protection order is decided on June 26, 2017;

2. A decision was made on a provisional protection order that prohibits access to telecommunications.

Nevertheless, on September 1, 2017, the Defendant, at around 19:34, in the Defendant’s residence located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Da, called “C” for three minutes and 25 seconds. On September 2, 2017, around 12:00, the Defendant violated the court’s temporary measures order by making a phone call.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. The application of statutes to the 112 reported case processing table, internal investigation report (related to notification of violation), a certified copy of an ad hoc protective order to capture a photograph of cellular phone records, a request for a victim protective order (a copy), ad hoc protective order (a copy), a direction for execution (a copy), a report on performance of fact-finding surveys (a copy of a report on fact-finding surveys), and a

1. Article 63 (1) 2 and Article 55-4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence and Selection of Fines concerning the relevant criminal facts;

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

1. Re-violation of ad hoc measures, even though the defendant found C whose reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was divorced and received in relation to the crime of special intimidation, is significantly limited to the legal order, and the nature of the crime is bad.

However, it was not directly approaching C with the content of the Defendant’s violation, and it was based on the two calls. On October 12, 2017, which was related to the instant concurrent crimes, there is room to consider equity in the case of being tried with the Defendant’s self-injury (Skcheon District Court 2017 High Court 1132) on October 12, 2017, and the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the late-math crime, etc. is considered as favorable circumstances, and the Defendant’s age, sex, and sexual intercourse.