A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

From November 6, 2013 to May 22, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s work by force over 19 occasions from November 6, 2013 to May 22, 2015, the Defendant: “E” operated by the victim D in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 6, 2013; “E”, which opened the door to open the door and opened the door so as to prevent customers who want to enter the said restaurant from entering the restaurant.

The defendant of "2015 Madan3060" found from October 22, 2015 to October 23, 2015 from October 22, 2015 to October 23, 2015 to the victim D operation E, and the majority of other customers on his/her name are changed, while the victim is found to have been under the influence of alcohol in the victim D operation E, the victim "the h head of the same year, the humb of the blap, the blap of the blap;

The hacker called the same hacker's hack, and the hacking of the waste hack in this place interfered with the hacker's hack operation.

Summary of Evidence

"2015 Highest 1673"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D, F, G, H, I, and J;

1. Each statement K and L;

1. Each photograph;

1. The details of processing each of 112 reported cases "2015 Highest 3060";

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. 112 Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the table of reported case settlement;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of punishment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act, and the selection of punishment for imprisonment;

1. In light of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, the Defendant had been punished seven times as a crime of interference with his/her duties and nine times as a violent crime, the Defendant continued to interfere with his/her duties since 2013, and the Defendant continued to interfere with his/her duties since 2013, without being aware of the fact that the instant trial was in progress, and the Defendant demanded the agreement to find the victimD while interfering with his/her duties at the same time, it is inevitable

Specific punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the frequency of the instant crime, the fact that the victims have agreed to, and the criminal records, age, etc. of the Defendant.