A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months, or by imprisonment for not more than eight months, for a crime set forth in the judgment of the court below.

Punishment of the crime

On November 28, 2014, the Defendant appealed from the Gwangju District Court after being sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. On May 14, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for habitual larceny at the Gwangju District Court, and completed the execution of the said sentence at the Gwangju District Court on August 13, 2016.

In addition, on May 20, 2016, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny at the Daejeon District Court's public order branch on May 20, 201, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2016.

1. The Defendant, who attempted to commit the crime of larceny, sent a letter to the defense counsel of the first instance court over several occasions, who did not have been sentenced to imprisonment as much as he expected in the appellate court of the said habitual larceny case.

Based on the experience of returning the fee of KRW 2 million among the fee of KRW 3,300,000, the victim was threatened to receive a refund of the fee.

On May 15, 2015, the Defendant filed a complaint with the victim of Gwangju District District Court in Gwangju District on May 15, 2015 without returning the sum of the attorney fees, deposit money, and amount of mental damage to the victim.

The letter was drawn up to the purport that “I will file a complaint or file a petition,” and sent it to the office of the victim in the fourth floor of the Dong-gu in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, without returning the fees.

The Defendant, as above, did not receive a refund of the fee from the injured party by threatening the victim, but the victim did not comply with it, but did not intend to file a complaint with the Gwangju District Public Prosecutor's Office on May 24, 2016 on the charge of attempted crimes, etc.

2. The Defendant sent a letter to the effect that the Defendant would return the fees several times as above, but the victim took one person’s demonstration around the victim’s office after having been released from his office after the victim’s death without complying with the request.