A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 8, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of intimidation at the Ulsan District Court on October 12, 2016 due to the fact that the victim E (n, 29 years of age) located in Ulsan District Court, Ulsan District Court around 12:20 on November 8, 2016, the Defendant threatened the victim by saying, “Influence of death, death of death of death, death of death of death of death, and murder of death,” and thereby threatening the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim with the purpose of retaliation against the victim's statement in relation to his criminal investigation or trial.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 5-9 (2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Order;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall be the basic area (from October to two years) of the crime of intimidation (no person subject to special sentencing];

2. The Defendant, who has been sentenced to punishment more than ten times for violent crimes, was subject to punishment on or around October 12, 2016, and again committed the instant crime for the purpose of retaliation against the victim despite the fact that he/she had been punished by a fine as a result of intimidation against the victim, and the degree of intimidation in this case is not less exceptionally and the victim’s mental shock is considerable, etc., the Defendant’s responsibility is less than those of the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol due to the occurrence of noise problems between neighbors, and committed the instant crime, and transferred the residence immediately after the instant case while preventing the victim from repeating the crime.