Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On April 1, 2016, the Incheon District Court was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury, etc., and the execution of the sentence was terminated on August 13, 2016.

On June 16, 2019, at C around 13:00, the Defendants were prevented from intending to see F's ‘F' that they are performing, and to go up to the free door where they are performing. Defendant A shall enter a waiting room where they are waiting to the public, and he shall cut off the jackets, show a door in the body of the Defendant, and tightly tightly tightly tight the victim, and take a desire for the victim. Defendant B stated that the number of household members in the waiting room “I am hyp. if you perform a few hyp, I am hyp.”

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victim's performance service for about one hour by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Part of each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. E's written statement;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Before the judgment: Judgment on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel, such as criminal history records, prosecutorial investigation reports (verification of the suspect's violent records), summary order and copies of the judgment, personal confinement status, case inquiry, etc.

1. The Defendants did not conspired to commit the crime as indicated in the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Joint principal offenders under Article 30 of the Criminal Code are crimes committed jointly by more than two persons, and the intent of joint processing by the actors is subjective requirements. However, the intent of joint processing is the recognition of joint processing in order to move one’s own will to practice one’s own will by being integrated to commit a specific criminal act among them, and the intention of joint processing is common sense with the intention of each other at the cancer, and it does not necessarily require any kind of mother’s process in advance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do985 delivered on June 11, 1991, etc.). B.

This Court has duly adopted and investigated.