[criminal history] On January 20, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment by obstructing the performance of official duties at the Suwon Friwon, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Suwon Nriwon detention center on June 7, 2016.

[2] The Defendant, from March 16, 2018 to March 23:30 of the same day, committed the crime, to the victim E, who is an employee of the Defendant, in the D Public Notice Do where the Defendant living in Sungnam-gu C4 was located, Sungnam-si, and the same day from March 16, 2018.

I wish to die with a human being.

“Along with a large sound, the door of the above public notice room 2 is strongly closed to the entire building several times so that noise and vibration are generated, thereby obstructing the operation of the public notice telecom by force of the victimized person, by causing a large number of civil petitions from the hosts of the above public notice room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. CCTV images;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, current status of personal expropriation, report on the result of confirmation of minor convictions in disposition, and application of the text of judgment;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommending punishment] interference with the affairs of Article 35 of the Criminal Act [the grounds for sentencing [the scope of recommending punishment] [one month or August] mitigation area (one month or August)] [the person who is subject to special mitigation] / The decision of sentencing is against his/her mistake, and the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant at the stage of investigation is favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the defendant had been punished for imprisonment for the same crime, he/she committed the crime without being aware of the period of repeated crime, and this court has already been punished for the same crime and repeated the error at the time when one month has not passed since the court had already been punished for the same crime.

In addition, the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of all the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.