[criminal history] On June 24, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment by the Cheongju District Court for attempted crimes, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence in the Cheongju Prison on January 6, 2018.

[Criminal facts]

1. On February 6, 2018, from around 04:30 to around 05:50, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance over about 1:20 minutes and 20 minutes of time, including: (a) the Defendant: (b) expressed a large voice in the D bath run by the victim C (65 years of age) in the third floor of Daejeon Sung-gu B building; (c) dumping the cryp and hot water to “open” in the D bath operated by the victim C (65 years of age); and (d) returned to the Defendant, the Defendant dumped the victim’s head and dump to cover the waste.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's privacy or business by force.

2. The Defendant demanded that the victim C (65 years) who managed the safies set forth in paragraph (1) above at the date, time, and at the place set forth in paragraph (1) above (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) operate safies, brushing the victim’s head into the victim’s head, bruding the victim into the floor, and bruding the victim into the safs, and brudly bru

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. C’s statement;

1. Field of damage and photographs of damaged parts;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as reports on investigation and criminal history;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

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

1. Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes [The defendant is only a victim's attack and conduct at the defense level, and did not have any intention to obstruct business, and violence is also a legitimate defense. However, although the victim's investigative agency and legal statement are consistent and specific, the victim's witness's statement can be believed to be consistent and specific, and witness's statement is also supported by the victim's statement. Accordingly, the defendant's argument is accepted.