The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant was the owner of the D apartment 103 103 Do 1015, who had resided in the instant charges for approximately one year, and sought compensation from the victim regarding the damage to the facility. A.

On August 16, 2012, the Defendant found D Apartment 102 106, 102 106, and requested the victim to go to go to the house which had been previously living before the victim, but the victim refused to go to go to the front of the victim's house, and the victim continued to go to go to the front of the victim's house, and requested the victim to go to go to the guard room while requesting the help to go to the guard room, and assault the victim.

나. 협박의 점 피고인은 2012. 8. 20. 11:00경 원주시 D아파트 103동 1016호에 있는 피고인의 사무실에서 피해자가 듣고 있는 가운데 피해자의 친구인 E에게 마치 피해자에게 위해를 가할 것처럼 “시쳇말로 하면 저거 죽여, 저녁마다 내가 106호에 찾아가서 해결될 때까지 재를 찾는 거하고 소를 제기해서 출국금지조치 시킬거야, 1년이든 2년이든 민형사상 책임이 있으면 출국 못한다”(이하 ‘이 사건 인용 부분’이라 한다)라고 말하는 등 피해자를 협박하였다.

2. Determination

A. Since the Defendant, as a permanent resident of a foreign country, was able to live in a foreign country for a long time, the Defendant absolutely did not have a son’s body at the time of the instant case, and was denied this part of the facts charged.

There is a statement in the victim's investigative agency and court as evidence directly corresponding to this part of the facts charged.

① In fact, the victim filed a complaint with an investigative agency at the beginning only for a crime of intimidation, not for assault, but for intimidation. However, this part of the indictment was also prosecuted as a crime of intimidation. However, the crime of assault was committed through changes in indictments during the third trial date.