(영문) 부산지방법원 2008.9.23.선고 2008고합515 판결

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years. 63 days under confinement prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Reasons

Criminal facts

1. On August 3, 2007, the Defendant, divorced with the victim V on August 3, 2007, thought that the victim did not cause any harm to the child, and thought that the victim would not be threatened by finding the victim. On May 28, 2008, around 07:00 on May 28, 2008, the Defendant threatened the victim in front of the victim's house located in Busan Jin-gu, with the victim's house, and threatened the victim by referring to the "Chosa and Kasa" and referring to the "Nhosa" with a large voice from around that time to July 5, 2008, and threatened the victim over 11 times, such as the list of crimes in attached Form (Omission).

2. 가. 2008. 5. 29. 06:00경 위 피해자의 집 앞에서, 사실은 피해자가 불륜을 저지른 사실이 없는데도 불구하고 피해자의 집 앞을 지나가던 이웃주민 할머니에게 "저 년이 내 몰래 바람을 피우고, 밤에 바람을 피우고 낮에 쉰다"고 말하여 공연히 허위사실을 적시하여 피해자의 명예를 훼손하고,

B. Around June 23, 2008, a copy of a letter containing the following: (a) the neighbor’s house living in the vicinity of the victim’s house; and (b) the victim, despite the fact that the victim had not liveded with his father and son before marriage, was working as a bus Vice Commissioner, despite the fact that the victim had not lived with his father and son before marriage, has damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

C. On July 5, 2008, around Busan, around 21:00, the victim was living with his father and her mother before marriage, and the victim did not have any difficulties with her mother while living with his father and her mother before marriage. However, the above restaurant operator damaged the victim's reputation by openly pointing out false facts to the victim's reputation by stating that the above restaurant operator "it was living with his father and son before marriage and she was living with her mother and friend, with a view to making it known that he was living with his mother and friend, even after marriage."

3. On July 16, 2008, at around 12:03, the house of the above victim came into existence, open a kitchen which is not locked, and intrudes into the residence of the victim, and

4. At the same time, at the same place as described in the preceding paragraph, V was able to keep the Defendant and her children from spreading, set up a fluorial door in which the Defendant applied for an order of prohibition of access to the court, set up several folds and the clothes of V on the floor in which the Defendant applied for an order of prohibition of access to the Defendant, and then set up two liters prepared in advance by opening a lid of a stopner and attaching a fire to the lided so that they were placed on the floor and then set up on the two floors of the above house, which is a cement block structure slive roof, through the floor and the wall, and then setting the two floors of the above house, which are used as dwelling, by two V and her children.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 283(1) of the Criminal Code (the point of intimidation, the choice of imprisonment), Article 307(2) of the Criminal Code (the point of defamation, the choice of imprisonment), Article 319(1) of the Criminal Code (the point of intrusion upon residence, the choice of imprisonment), Article 164(1) of the Criminal Code (the point of intimidation), Article 164(1) of the Criminal Code (the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment Governing Punishment as stipulated for the Crimes of Fire-Fighting and Fire-Fighting of the largest structure)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

For the reason of sentencing, the crime of this case committed by the Defendant, who is the victim, V, and the victim, committed the crime of this case by threatening the victim over several times, or by impairing the honor of the victim by pointing out false facts to the residents of the Dong and causing a fire. In the end, the crime of this case was committed by intrusion upon the victim’s house.

While recognizing the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime from an investigative agency to this court, the Defendant is likely to commit the said crime by preventing the victim from falling short of wind, driving away from his house, and driving away from his house.

However, according to the evidence revealed in this court, the defendant was unable to look at his home without any specific occupation, such as leaving his occupation, and did not bring about living expenses to the victim. When the victim was divorced from the victim by filing a claim for judicial divorce, it is recognized that the victim was frightened, and his/her father and his/her father were sexually punished against the defendant. The victim and his/her father, who were his/her father, were living with his/her family and his/her father, and the victim did not suffer from mental harm to the defendant. In addition, it seems that the victim's family and his/her father, who had been living with his/her family, had been living with the victim's family and his/her father, and the victim's family and his/her father, who had been living with his/her father, had been living with the victim's mind at the time of committing the crime, and the defendant did not have any harm to the victim's family and his/her father's family and his/her mother. In addition, it seems that the victim's family and his/her mother were living with the victim's body.