A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for twenty years.

Punishment of the crime

Around June 2014, the Defendant supported two children after the previous denial and divorce, and the head of the business division of the Content Manufacturing Enterprise: (a) found a singing room in C around October 2015; (b) became aware of the victim D (or 47 years of age) who works in C at Silung-si; (c) the victim has been living separately with her husband and her husband for about 10 years; and (d) the victim has supported two children through singing and singing and has maintained their livelihood; (b) the Defendant and the victim have maintained their relationship with each other from around that time, and even if the Defendant did not have a sufficient amount of income, the victim has provided a certain amount of money every month to the victim as living expenses.

From the end of June 2016, when the Defendant gradually experienced a burden on supporting the living expenses to the victim, the Defendant received a request from the victim to pay the living expenses to the victim more than normal one, and received a request from the company to pay the victim on July 2016. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant requested the victim to “on the next day before attending the school and make a change in the living expenses” from the victim, but on July 12, 2016, the Defendant sent the money to the victim on the back of the day after the back of the day, which led to the victim’s objection to the reduction of the number of times between the Defendant and him/her.

Around 01:00 on July 14, 2016, the Defendant had been able to sleep with the victim at the inside of the Defendant’s residence located in Silung-si E, and on the same day, the Defendant discovered that the victim was shouldered at around 01:30 on the same day, and asked the victim to “whether it would be bad for the victim to pay back or because it would be different because of late payment of the amount of money, or because of others,” while communicating with the victim, the Defendant did not come up with the victim properly and took the attitude of rice, and even if the questioning was made again until 05:00 on the same day, the victim was her own.