Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On March 21, 2017, at around 02:23, the Defendant: (a) arrived at the front of the office of the Eup/Myeon in the same radius of 59 in the city where the victim D (51) was on board the cafeteria located in Jin-si, Jin-si; (b) the victim demanded the Defendant to pay the 9,700 won of the taxi fee to the Defendant; (c) the victim called “fin-si-si”; and (d) the victim called “fin-si-si-si-si”, “fin-si-si-si” in the neighboring area where the victim was on board the front of the “C” restaurant; and (d) opened a vehicle door with the front of the victim’s seat, one hand, or another hand, and (e) caused the victim to take advantage of the victim’s property interest, and (e) make the victim take advantage of the fin-si to use the fin-si’s share at the same amount of fin-si.”

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits by threatening the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to suspect image, black stuffs video CDs at the time of dispatch of site photographs, taxi expense receipts, and taxi expense receipts;

1. Article 350 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that he was in a state of mental or physical weakness or loss by drinking at the time of committing the instant crime. Thus, according to the records, the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, but in full view of the circumstances such as the background and result of the instant case, the Defendant’s behavior before and after committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.