1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won;

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 4, 2014, at around 20:25, the Defendant, at the D Office located in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, expressed the attitude of the victim E (the age of 25) to commit harm to the body of the victim, such as when the victim E (the age of 25) was not complied with the commitment to the payment of automobile transfer expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of suspect with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of notarial deed, a copy of promissory note execution note, and a copy of automobile transfer certificate;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant did not voluntarily participate in a leg and took a wall, and that the Defendant did not notify the victim of the harm and injury. Therefore, the crime of intimidation is not established.

In addition, even if the defendant's act constitutes a constituent element of the crime of intimidation, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules.

2. The act of notifying a person of harm to the crime of intimidation is ordinarily based on the language or, as the case may also be, by means of satisfy without Hanmadi’s speech.

(See Supreme Court Decision 74Do2727 delivered on October 7, 1975). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant involved in the dispute over the transaction of used cars between F and E, and in the process of demanding the victim to resolve the problem, it is recognized that the defendant has a negative effect on the part of F and E. In light of the context before and after the defendant's act was committed and surrounding circumstances, it can be evaluated as a threat of harm and injury caused by the operation of F and E.

In addition, the defendant's act was conducted for the exercise of F's rights.