Text
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On April 2017, the Defendant knew that the Victim B was her husband and her husband, sent the text message to the victim or sent the message to the victim as follows.
1. On April 20, 2017, the Defendant sent a text message stating that “When he / she was aware of it, he/she would come to her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.”
was made.
2. The defendant has committed the same harm;
5. Dispatching the victim, at the same place in around 17:32, a text message stating, “I will know about whether you will be able to get out of E,” in the same manner;
was made.
3. The defendant has committed the same harm.
6. 22. at around 15:45, at the same place, sending a text message stating that “Is the victim to keep the victim in the same manner and at the same time, Is the victim “Is the report of harassment.”
was made.
4. On March 16, 2018, the Defendant: (a) at the same place on the same time and at the same time, phone calls to the victim; and (b) he/she must tear the thalle, which would be flicked; and (c) he/she shall be subject to tax calculation,
The term "the same year as a width" was stated as "the same."
Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim four times.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police against B;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on recording and writing records;
1. Relevant Article 283 of the Criminal Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;
1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;
1. 50,000 won of a fine for which the sentence is suspended; and
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (one hundred thousand won per day converted);
1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the Suspension of Sentence (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 1, 2006)