A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, “2018 Highest 772,” was married with the Victim C in around 2005 and divorced in around 2013, and the Victim has the right to care for his/her children.

A. On August 10, 2017, the Defendant, refusing to leave, forced the victim to write a letter of waiver of parental authority on the ground that the victim C was changing the phone number at the “E beauty art room,” which is employed by the victim C in Bosung-gun D, and the victim rejected it and notified several times to move at the above establishment, but the written indictment by up to 16:25 of the same day is written as “18:25”.

However, according to the victim's statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018 High Order 772, supra), it appears that it is a clerical error in the victim's statement until 16:25.

ex officio revised as stated in the text and recognized as criminal facts.

There was no justifiable reason to refuse the request for eviction.

B. The Defendant interfering with the business on the above ground that the Defendant’s “Wook” was the victim’s letter of waiver of parental authority.

The cosmetic operated by the victim by force, such as "a sound, a sound, and a bath, etc., and making the customers in the beauty art room play a part of the disturbance, etc., thereby obstructing the cosmetic operated by the victim.

2. “2018 Highest 1463” is between the Defendant and C who is divorced from the Victim C.

Since Gwangju received a victim protection order at the regular court’s net support around January 23, 2018, the Defendant was not sent text messages from July 22, 2018 to the victim’s handphones. However, from March 7, 2018, the same year was from around July 7, 2018.

4. Until March 13, 199, the victim violated the victim protection order by transmitting the text message 13 times to the victim’s handphone.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the third public trial date), "2018 Highest 772";

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A investigation report (as to the words and actions of the A), 2018 Madan1463;

1. C’s statement;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Application of statutes governing a victim protective order;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;