A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On February 6, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) in Daegu District Court and racing support on February 6, 2013, and the said judgment becomes final and conclusive on February 14, 2013 and is still under probation.

1. On July 26, 2013, at around 22:50 on July 26, 2013, the Defendant committed an indecent act by compulsion by force against the victim’s victim F (the victim’s 49 years of age) who had talked with employees E in the carcter by reporting the victim’s cherb with the victim’s cherbage, and following the Defendant’s cherb, knating the victim’s cherb to the victim’s hand, and her cherb and fherb to the victim’s cherb to the extent that the victim was asked to cherb in the Defendant’s hand. The Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim.

2. In a case where the victim resisted to report the fact that he had suffered indecent acts as above at the time and place mentioned in paragraph (1), the Defendant publicly insulting the victim by publicly insultingly speaking, “The victim is the same as spawn, bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, and sexual indecent acts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of inquiries, such as criminal records, and criminal investigation reports (not less than 115 to 132 pages of investigation records);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense and the choice of a penalty under Articles 298 and 311 of the Criminal Act;

1. According to the records on the determination of whether the Defendant had been drunk at the time of each of the instant crimes, among concurrent crimes, according to the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant was found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crimes, but in light of the background, means, and methods of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crimes, etc., the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to detention.