A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Punishment of the crime

【The Defendant appealed on June 25, 2015, from the Youngju District Court’s Young-dong branch, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for an injury, etc., and was released on September 23, 2015 during the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the Cheongju District Court on January 22, 2016, and the execution of the sentence became final and conclusive on January 30, 2016, and was completed on the date the said judgment became final and conclusive.

【2017 order 156】

1. On August 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 22:20 on August 26, 2017, and around 22:20, the Defendant destroyed two copies of the glass windows equivalent to KRW 220,00 in the market price by gathering one concrete brick (20.5cm wide, 9.5cm long), which is a dangerous object, within the end of the victim D’s house located in Chungcheong-gun C, Chungcheong-gun C, without any particular reason.

2. The Defendant infringed upon a residence at the time, time, and place indicated in paragraph (1), destroyed the victim’s house glass, and entered the victim’s house room and the main room with a shoulder glass, thereby infringing on the victim’s residence.

【2018 Highest 47】 On March 4, 2018, the Defendant stated in the indictment that “the Defendant shall wear a fluort” in the front of the Haak-dong E-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, and reported that the Defendant was fluorted on the Han-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, and only one police officer G, etc., belonging to the F District Unit of the F District Police Station called out, shall be prevented, and India shall take the bath, such as “Ie-gu, Ie-gu, Ie-gu, Ie-gu,” and the Defendant shall not take the fluort and put the fluort on his arms and other arms. However, this Court duly adopted the indictment and recognized it as above in accordance with the evidence.

In light of the progress of the trial of this case, the defendant did not suffer substantial disadvantage in exercising his right to defense.

Since it is determined, it is recognized as above by its authority without being required to modify the indictment.

In other words, violence was committed.

As a result, the defendant performs his duties on the maintenance of order of police officers.