A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant and the victim B (the age of 42) are each married in their own marriage and the victim B (the age of 42) have been causing damage to the Defendant by demanding the Defendant to be the hedge against the Defendant around December 2013, 201 while performing the teaching system from around 2011 to December 2013.

On November 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) sought the victim’s house before the victim’s house located in Dobong-gu Seoul apartment, Dobong-gu, Seoul; and (b) made a phone call to the victim; and (c) threatened the victim by saying, “I wish to know by telephone to the victim’s wife, her husband and her husband if I do not respond to the phone call.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. A complaint;

1. Evidential materials (Kakao Stockholm letters and recording records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (the complainant B and telephone details);

1. Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: one month to three years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria (as of October 1, 2014, the scope of recommending punishment) (the scope of recommending punishment) to the basic area (two months to one year) of the crimes of intimidation (no special person).

3. The crime of this case, which was sentenced to sentence, was committed by the defendant by threatening her husband and her children to know about the fact that the defendant had disturbed with her husband and her children. The nature of the crime is not good; although the crime was not in currency, her husband and her children were in fact exposed to telephone for the victim's children; however, her husband and her children did not have any record of punishment prior to the crime; it is against the fact that the defendant had no record of punishment prior to the crime; and that she would not have access to the victim in the future; and other factors of sentencing shown in the records of this case, such as the circumstances, attitudes, circumstances after the crime, age, character and conduct of the defendant, and environment, shall be determined as ordered by the order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.