However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On October 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) boarded at the Amsan Station located in 09:23 on October 2, 2016, at the Amsan Station located in 09:23, and arrived at the BTX B train in Busan, Busan, and delayed the operation of the train for about five minutes on the ground that the service of train crew members on the front of the entrance of the train No. 10 10 train does not appear in mind; and (b) the Defendant continued to stop the operation of the train by cutting off any electricity attached to C, the team leader of the said train, on the ground that the service of the train crew members on the front of the entrance of the train No. 10, the train does not appear in mind; and (c) continued to stop the entrance of the said train without opening one bridge at the entrance of the train No. 10.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the traffic of the train in such a way as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Each written statement prepared D and E;

1. A CCTV video-recording room and a scopon CD;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 186 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 6 months up to 15 years;

2.The sentencing criteria shall not apply to traffic obstruction in the decision making of sentence.

The instant crime was committed on the ground that the Defendant’s service of train crew did not lead to mind, and thus, prevented the Defendant from not communicating with the train for the start of the train by cutting off any electricity attached to the train team’s blurg, and delayed the operation of the train for about five minutes by continuously prohibiting the entrance of the train through one bridge at the entrance of the train. In light of the background of the instant crime and the method of the commission of the crime, etc., the crime was not committed, causing inconvenience to the number of passengers using the train due to the instant crime, and due to the characteristics of the railroad traffic.