[criminal power] On January 7, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective crime, deadly weapon, etc.) in an Ansan District Court’s Ansan Branch, and completed the execution of the sentence in an Ansan Prison on September 13, 2011. On June 12, 2013, the Suwon District Court sentenced four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 20, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 8, 2013, at around 21:10, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s business of singing practice room by force by avoiding the disturbance for about 25 minutes, including, but not limited to, the case where: (a) the Defendant: (b) the Defendant: (c) the Defendant placed the victim in the E-practice room operated in Suwon-si C; (d) the Defendant placed the victim with the intention to bring the string from the victim; and (e) the Defendant placed the victim in the instant singing practice room; and (e) the Defendant placed the victim in the instant singing practice room at the large interest of “this string, which will be prohibited; and (e) the head of the string; and (e)

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Previous records: Investigation reports (verification of the expiry date of execution), inquiry reports, criminal records, etc., investigation reports (Attachment to the same type of criminal records, written judgments, etc.), inquiry into summary information of the case, application of statutes and regulations;

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

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

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant's argument about the latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the crime of interference with business as stated in the judgment of the court below and the crime of interference with business) was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of

According to the examined evidence, the defendant's drinking at the time of the crime of this case is recognized as having a drinking, but it seems that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and thus, it is not acceptable to accept the claim of mental or physical disability.

The reason for sentencing is the background of the instant crime.