The punishment of the accused shall be set forth in six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On September 7, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for interference with business affairs by the Seoul Northern District Court, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on March 17, 2017. On August 17, 2018, the same court was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for special injury, etc. and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 25, 2018.

[2] On August 4, 2018, around 09:15, the Defendant: (a) expressed desire to a large number of unspecified people who were under the influence of alcohol in the Myeon area park located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu; (b) and (c) Da and Mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-child to take a part of the victim’s neck; and (c) held the victim’s necks when taking part in the breast and the breast-path-gu in the treatment days; and (d) made the victim take part in the breast-path-si in the treatment days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Investigation report (Saute C telephone conversations verification report) (Saute C telephone conversations);

1. Previous convictions: (A) a response to inquiry, such as criminal history, a report on investigation (Attachment of data recognizing repeated crimes), a prior conviction for repeated crimes, the current status of acceptance of individuals, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting prior convictions and results of confirmation;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act regarding concurrent crimes: Provided, That the nature of the crime is not less exceptionally given the degree of the use of violence by the victim and the degree of injury suffered by the victim due to the use of violence on the ground that the defendant was aware of his/her failure due to the breath of the sentencing of Article 39(1).

Furthermore, the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment on several occasions due to a crime of violence, such as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, a crime of assault, and a crime of bodily injury, and in particular, on September 7, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment due to a crime of interference with business on September 7, 2016 and completed the execution of the sentence on March 17, 2017, and thereafter, there is a high possibility of criticism for the instant crime during the period of

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it.