A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On May 31, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Busan District Court; on April 18, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Busan District Court; on May 4, 2011, the Busan High Court sentenced three years of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc.; on July 4, 2016, the execution of the sentence was completed at the Busan Correctional Institution; on January 30, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Busan District Court for special intimidation, etc. and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 9, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

피고인은 2017. 4. 14. 18:14경 장소불상지에서, 피해자 B이 C을 강간하고 동영상을 촬영하였다는 말을 C으로부터 듣고 화가 나 피고인의 휴대폰(D, E)으로 피해자에게 "네가 마스크 낀다고 모를 줄 알았나 봤제 F 애들 다 풀어놨던거 봤제 기다려라 너 애들이 검은 마스크 낀다고 모를줄 알았나 이미 네 사진 다 뿌러졌다 너 꼭 잡는다고 했지 기다려라 넌 잡는다 "라는 내용의 문자 메시지를 보낸 것을 비롯하여 2017. 4. 11.경부터 2017. 4. 14.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 총 10회에 걸쳐 문자 메시지를 보내는 방법으로 피해자를 협박하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Details, etc. of text messages on mobile phones;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, repeated statements, investigation reports (Attachment of a copy of judgment), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes is that the defendant intimidations the victim without being able to do so even though the defendant is a repeated offender of the same kind of crime, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant did not agree with the victim.