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

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

Punishment of the crime

No person shall interfere with the performance of duties of railroad workers due to violence or intimidation.

On February 17, 2018, the Defendant, at around 15:50 to 16:10, received a request for the presentation of boarding passes from the victim D, who is a crew member of le-day tourism development, in the course of a passenger crossing between 5 vehicles and 6 vehicles of C, running between the electric poles and the southwon Station, and the Defendant: (a) he/she shall do so, and (b) he/she shall do so, “I do not put any marking, spackers fright fright fright fright fright,” and:

When she concluded that she wanting to die, she would have her end to die, she would have shed, she would have shed, and she would have shed, she would have her breast part at 10 times by her hand and she would have shed off her name tag attached to the left side on the uniforms of the victim.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the safety, protection and maintenance of order of railroad workers due to violence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the special judicial police with regard to D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E and D written statements (Evidence Nos. 39,40 pages)

1. Relevant Article 78 (1) and Article 49 (2) of the Railroad Safety Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 78 (1) and 49 of the Election Safety Act concerning the option of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1548, Apr. 1, 2009)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the defendant under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, although the defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time, it seems that the defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.