A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On June 30, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for damage to public goods in the Seo-gu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court on June 30, 2014, and the said judgment was finalized on October 2, 2014.

On March 20, 2014, at around 13:20, the Defendant: (a) committed assault, such as breaking a disturbance, taking a bath, etc. on the ground that the Defendant did not additionally pay both horses in the Daegu prison 1-2 Dong-dong (Aprisoned by a person in charge of disciplinary action) located in the Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun District; (b) committed assault, such as breaking the Defendant into the entrance room, putting the Defendant into the air room, cutting the d’s breath with a defective hand, cutting the d’s breath by hand; and (c) assaulting the said Daegu prison security division and the teacher E, who works in the said Daegu-gun prison, after the Defendant, assaulting the Defendant, plucking, plucking, etc. the left hand hand of the horse E.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of order in D and E, which is a correctional public official, and at the same time, inflicted injury on the victim E (the age of 36) by cutting off the bones of fingers, which requires approximately 4 weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, E, and D;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of investigation reports (Attachment of written judgments) and criminal history records-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Punishment prescribed for the most severe crime of bodily injury);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disability caused by the loss or over-the-counter loss at the time of committing the crime of this case, as well as the counsel on the determination of mental disorder under the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the records, the defendant filed a civil petition to correctional public officials several times due to mental illness, such as the damage network, etc., and the disturbance in the process of filing the civil petition seems to have become the origin of the crime of this case. However, the crime of this case is committed.