A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On May 18, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in the Southern Branch of the Gwangju District Court. On March 11, 2018, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence in the Mapo Prison.

[2] On May 13, 2018, from around 09:10 to around 09:45 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s golf course operation by force by avoiding the disturbance of about 30 minutes by avoiding the disturbance to the victim’s golf course operation by force. In order to prevent the victim’s golf course operation, the Defendant, an employee in the scke from causing the disturbance to a representative or manager, without any justifiable reason, of the victim E, who is an employee in the scke.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. A photograph of a CCTV image from the scene of the case;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, personal confinement status, and application of a copy of the judgment;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Basic area of the sentencing criteria (the scope of the recommended punishment) applicable to the scope of business interference: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months to one year and six months (no person subject to special sentencing);

2. The Defendant, who was sentenced to sentence, obstructed the victim’s work by force under the influence of alcohol without any special reason.

The Defendant had the record of being sentenced to suspended sentence due to interference with the business of the same victim, and even during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, again committed the instant crime.

However, the defendant acknowledges and reflects his mistake.

No serious violence was exercised by the defendant, such as when the defendant directly gets human beings or destroys the equipment.

The victim company expressed that the employee in charge of the golf course management is not wanting to be punished for the victim.

The defendant committed the crime of this case on a planned basis.