[criminal power] The defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of assault at the Incheon District Court on November 10, 2017, and the judgment was finalized on November 18, 2017 and is currently under probation.

【Criminal Facts】

1. At around 19:00 on August 28, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) at the “E” point operated by the victim D (Inn, 57 years of age) located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; (b) while drinking alcohol, the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and caused the cryp to the customer, thereby causing the cryp to the customer, and then the Defendant was able to become the customer, and then the Defendant was able to become the customer of the cryp; and (c) the Defendant got the customer of the cryp; and (d) the Defendant was able to walk the cryp and walk the cryp to the cryp, and prevented the customer from entering the said cryp for about 50 minutes by force.

2. On August 28, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 19:50 on August 28, 2018, at the above main toilets, the Defendant destroyed a storm with the victim’s possession by drinking the eggs installed on the wall of the toilet, without participating in the disturbance, so that the amount of the incidental repair cost can be included in the amount of the non-repair.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Previous records: Search of consolidated cases, application of court rulings and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Among concurrent offenders, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is 【Selection of Imprisonment’s Punishment’s Punishment’, rather than i.e., the purification of community treatment, but rather the purification of community treatment, it is not consistent with the equity with the other Defendants, as well as the legal sentiment of the general public. Therefore, there is a clear reason for special consideration for specific justice.