On September 1, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor due to assault, etc. in the Jung-gu District Court Goyang branch on September 1, 2016 and completed the execution of the sentence on March 30, 2017.

1. On March 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 08:30 on March 2, 2018, at the O cafeteria located in Seo-gu Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon, in order to prevent the Victim P and alcohol from drinking the Victim P and drinking; (b) the Victim’s face was taken by drinking; (c) the Victim’s face was taken by taking the Victim’s face into account; and (d) the Victim’s face was taken by taking the Victim’s face into account, the Victim’s 14-day therapy was damaged, and the Victim was sprinked.

2. On October 20, 2017, around 00:20, the Defendant obstructed the business operation of the damaged person’s business establishment by force, such as: (a) the R main points located in Seocheon-si Q, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si; (b) the instant Defendant was holding the cupped World Cup on the table table to customers; (c) the Plaintiff S (V, 48 years old); (d) the Plaintiff, the owner of the business, was able to control the Defendant; and (e) the victim’s left eye part of the victim’s left eye; and (e) disputes with T, the customer, etc. who was a horse.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers against T or U;

1. Statement by the police against S;

1. A P statement;

1. The relevant photograph and the injury diagnosis report;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a written inquiry about criminal history and investigation report (verification of punishment details of the same type of case) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of harm, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor) concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes again without being aware of the fact that the reason for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes was committed during the period of repeated crimes for the same kind of crime, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, and in the case of the victim S, he does not want the punishment of the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

. The above.