Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, who is a university student, was in a relationship with D, the husband of the victim C, and considering that the above C was not a good answer against the above D, the above C did not have a good answer.

1. On October 26, 2012, around 02:40, the Defendant was found at the house of the above victim E Apartment 103 dong 806, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and opened several doors, and the above victim opened the door by finding the Defendant as the seat, and tried to confirm the fact that the Defendant is not the seat of the victim and to close the door, the said victim was pushed down and intruded into the victim’s residence.

2. At the time and place set forth in Paragraph 1, the injured Defendant: (a) taken the victim C’s head scarf and scarf of the said victim C on the ground that the said victim C did not have a good answer to the Defendant’s her former male-child appearance D; (b) took the face of the victim C by drinking it on several occasions; and (c) taken the victim F’s face, the father of the victim C, who had observed the witness, taken the witness and taken the face of the victim C; (d) suffered injury to the said victim C by the left-hand side of the victim C, which requires approximately four weeks medical treatment; and (e) inflicted injury on the said victim F on the unclaimed part of the treatment days.

3. Intimidation and the damage of property, as described in paragraph (1), at the time and place described in paragraph (2), the Defendant argued to the effect that the victim C and F are injured by each injury and that “the victim is fluoring a dog,” and that “the victim is fluoring a kitchen in the kitchen bet the kitchen,” and that “the victim may die in the kitchen,” etc., was committed to the victim’s body or life. The Defendant threatened the victim, and thereby, damaged the above toilet door by getting the victim c to drink and a toilet, thereby impairing its utility so that it would constitute repair costs at the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant;