Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On January 8, 2015, the defendant filed an application for divorce with a court on the ground that he/she has been married to the wife C, and subject to deliberation period.

4. 8. To inform the victim of the fact of communications between a broadcasting station and the school where the victim works in the course of divorce;

On February 2, 2015, the victim’s cell phone Kax of the victim thought to be aware of the victim’s sexual intercourses or more, and the head of the school would have flickly flickly flickly flickly flicked and removed from the school. The victim sent the victim’s message of “I flickly flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flick flicking flick flicking flick flicking flick flicking flick.” From March 26, 2015 to April 19, 20

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a petition (attaching evidence related to intimidation);

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 44-7 (1) 3 and Article 44-7 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc., concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant thought that he would return the victim’s mind and re-tending the home, and there was no intent to arouse fears or apprehensions to the victim. Furthermore, the Defendant’s act of transmitting text messages on the instant criminal facts is a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms and thus, illegality is dismissed.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment as to the existence of a criminal intent to cause fear or apprehension, namely, even though the Defendant agreed to divorce with the victim on April 8, 2015, the victim’s injury, as stated in the facts constituting the crime, is immediately the victim’s injury.