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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On April 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 21:10 on April 23, 2015, to the Victim D (V, 62 years of age) who is the wife at the home of the Defendant located in Heak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Cheongju-si; and

C. Pursuant to the sound called "dulging fluor", dilution (pacter ingredients) was fluorous in front of the defendant's house warehouse, and the body of the ward and the victim was fluored.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. The police statements in D and E [the defendant's defense counsel's statement or testimony in D and E are not reliable, each of the above statements is relatively specific and consistent, the situation at the time of the crime is reasonably explained, and the defendant's statement in D and E (the defendant's defense counsel has affixed to D which is the wife at the time of the crime).

The credibility of the “satisfy” may be sufficiently recognized in light of the following: (a) the sound was satisfyed and out of, and satisfyed by dilution; and (b) the satisfyed and satisfyed into a ward; and (c) the attitude of the statement in this court

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. At the time of the case claiming the assertion, the Defendant, who wishes to enter F and E, stimulated and stimuled, provokinged to string, advanced, and stimulated atmosphere, and the Defendant spreaded a dilution with the intent of causing two threats to the above two people, and thus, this constitutes an urgent escape or excessive defense.

2. In full view of the above evidence and the statements of the witness F, the Defendant suspected of the male relationship between the male and female victim at ordinary times and the witness E on the day of the instant case.