Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 17, 2020: (a) around 12:26, the Defendant mispercing the number of houses to be delivered in Guro-gu Seoul apartment and C’s residential corridor; (b) the victim D (in South, 25 years of age) who caused the restaurant delivery; (c) divided the number of houses to be delivered to the restaurant delivery; and (d) made it broken, the Defendant ran the nes of the wooden material, which is a dangerous object in the house, into the right hand of the victim, on the ground that the nes of the wooden material ( total length of 40-50cm, diameter of 6-7cm).

Does the delivery, delivery, spores, or desire to do so

‘The Doctrine' and the Doctrine, as the Doctrine would be, threatened.

Accordingly, the Defendant, carrying with himself the monin, which is a dangerous object, threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of D and E;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. The defendant asserts that a report on the occurrence of a crime (Intimidation) (the defendant only resisted the victim's obses while the victim's misunderstandings the first race, and there is no fact that there was no threat to the victim by monin.

However, in this court, the victim erroneously divided the defendant's house's portrait as a result of the loss of the delivery pre-delivery mark, and the victim was the victim and the victim. The victim entered the house and her house and her monged with a mong, and her monged with a mong and her mong, and reported to the police.

The defendant stated to the effect that "the defect defendant entered a house and laid a steel monb".

The victim made a relatively concrete statement about the size, material quality, etc. of the steel class.

In addition, the victim reported 112 of the case immediately after the case, "Any person wants to go into a monarch," and requested a police officer dispatched upon receipt of the report to force the police officer to search whether or not a monarch exists in the defendant's house, and it is also consistent with the police officer's legal statement of E called E.

Therefore, in full view of the evidence in the judgment, the credibility of the victim's statement is recognized, and the defendant could recognize the fact that the defendant threatened the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.)