Seized No. 1 (C. 1 knife) shall be forfeited from the accused.

[2] At around 22:33 on August 22, 2019, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s main business operation by force, i.e., “D”, operated by the victim C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) located in B at B at B at B at B at B at B at C at B at B at B at C at B at 2:3, 2019.

[200 Highest 173 and 2020 Highest 493]

1. On January 3, 2020, the Defendant, who violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, concealed the knife (28.5cm in total length, 17cm in knife length) that was dangerous in the “G ranran bar” located in “G ranran bar” in “G ranran bar” located in “G ranran-si” in “E”.

As a result, the defendant carried a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles that are likely to be used for a crime without any justifiable reason.

2. On February 1, 2020, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim E (Eba.) by force for about one minute of approximately 1 minute, such as passing the victim E (Eba.) under the circumstances where many customers drink alcohol, and interfered with the victim’s performance of the business by force.

3. In a case where some of the facts constituting an inclusive crime of habitual special assault are prosecuted first for a simple single crime, and the remaining facts constituting an inclusive crime are found to be part of an act constituting an inclusive crime and an additional crime of simple crime, it can be deemed that the purport of applying for punishment of all the facts constituting an inclusive crime committed before and after the additional indictment is included.

(Supreme Court Decision 96Do1698 delivered on October 11, 1996). The prosecutor, through his written opinion on May 13, 2020, expressed the purport that the instant violent crime is prosecuted as an inclusive crime.

On the other hand, "Habitual" in Article 264 of the Criminal Code refers to a habitive wall of an act of violence that covers all the criminal acts listed in the same Article.