Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

On October 30, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment by the Seoul Western District Court due to interference with business affairs, etc., and the above sentence became final and conclusive on April 3, 2015, and completed the enforcement of the above sentence at the Seoul Southern Southern District Court on July 11, 2015.

On December 29, 2015, at around 15:00, the Defendant: (a) sent the victim, who was aware of the victim D (at around 48 years old), who was in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, as a member of the mountain conference; (b) followed alcohol; and (c) the victim refused to do so and made it difficult for him/her to smoke in a way; and (d) obstructed the victim’s operation of the restaurant by force by having the victim smoked for about one hour.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions: Application of inquiries, such as criminal history, replys to inquiries and the current status of personal expropriations;

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

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes is that the Defendant was sentenced to a crime of interference with duties as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as interference with the performance of duties, and was committed another type of crime without being aware of the fact during the period of repeated crimes, and was sentenced to a fine on November 27, 2015 for the crime of destroying property that was committed during the period of repeated crimes. In addition to the record of the above crime, the Defendant was subject to punishment more than three times as the same crime.

Therefore, the sentence of sentence on the defendant is inevitable.

However, the above punishment shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant repents his mistake, and that the injured person does not want the punishment against the defendant by agreement with the victim of this case.

1. Determination of dismissal of prosecution