Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was a professor serving concurrently as C.

1. On July 18, 2015, the Defendant opened a school day on July 18, 2015, and the victim D distorted, thereby suppressing the truth of the party’s correspondence.

It will not be satisfing the political parties.

C. The single disclosure will be made public.

I will also report the suspicion of tax evasion.

“The victim threatened the victim by transmitting an e-mail containing the content to the victim.”

2. The Defendant, around July 21, 2015, has no answer from the victim on July 21, 2015, and, at around 07:56, there is no answer from the victim, and “I cannot know how much the person is within,” and the Defendant has good morals from this subject.

The victim threatened the victim by transmitting an e-mail containing the content of “the victim.”

3. On July 22, 2015, the Defendant did not answer the victim on July 22, 2015, and “I will begin with a unilateral promise, but will start from the day as I will see.

“The victim threatened the victim by transmitting an e-mail containing the content.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written complaints filed in DNA;

1. Application of statutes governing e-mail output;

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

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

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

1. The claimed victim first gathered the Defendant.

The defendant sent e-mail as stated in the criminal facts with the intent to close the dispute without filing a criminal complaint against the victim by taking advantage of the victim, so there was no criminal intent of intimidation.

2. According to the evidence of the judgment, the victim filed an objection to the appointment of the Defendant’s external co-operation director with the C Council and filed a petition with the C Council to the effect that it is unfair for the victim to receive the remuneration of the professor holding concurrent posts without taking lectures.