A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is between the victim C (n, 36 years of age) and the victim C in 2014, and the victim D (n, 11 years of age) is a child between the defendant and the victim C.

On March 1, 2016, at a place where it is impossible to identify the location of the Defendant, the Defendant walked a telephone to the victim C, and came to be inside the victim “n't change the sex of Nice and have been in an absolute eye.”

There is no day of finding the family court.

n. He made it clear that he will do so.

In this regard, “The victims were threatened ten times in total from around that time to February 1, 2017, as indicated in the list of annexed crimes, such as referring to the same as the victim would inflict an injury upon finding the said victim.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of the CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with labor for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes is very inappropriate for the victim C, who is prior to the divorce of the Defendant, and repeatedly threatened the victim with a dynamic suspicion. The content of the intimidation constitutes a threat of direct murder, and thus, the victim appears to have caused serious fear and apprehensions to the extent that the daily life of the victim is difficult for him/her, and even if he/she made intimidation to D, the crime is very heavy in that it constitutes a threat of direct murder.

Even though the Defendant had been punished for the crime of intrusion upon the victim C and the crime of violation of the Information and Communications Network Act due to the same motive, the Defendant committed the crime of this case again, and even during the investigation of this case, the circumstances after the crime are very poor, such as finding the victim’s mother who could not have avoided the Defendant and transferred his address, and attempting to repeat the crime in a qualitative manner.

In addition, in this law, the risk of recidivism is high, and the possibility of substantial harm to the victims is high, in view of the fact that the victims are not deadly doubtful.