beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On July 11, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the obstruction of performance of official duties, property damage, violation of the Resident Registration Act, assault, bodily injury, and insult, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on March 17, 2019. On July 3, 2019, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced the Defendant to one year and two months of imprisonment for the obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on June 20, 202.
【Criminal Facts】
1. On July 25, 2020, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (Habitual special assault) around 06:30 on July 25, 2020, after drinking food at the “D” restaurant where the victim C (at the age of 57) in the Seoul Northern-gu B and the first floor (at the age of 57) works as an employee, the Defendant saw the victim “Is the victim “Iskn't have food sme, slaves it by slave,” and sees the victim’s words “Iskn't me in such manner, Iskn't me off the me, and followed the me to the me, who was a dangerous object on the table, and went back to the me to the me, and was suffering from the me to the her drinking and drinking.
As a result, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment not less than twice due to assault, etc., and was revised appropriately to the extent that it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant's right of defense during the period of repeated crime.
On September 8, 2020, the defendant carried dangerous articles and argued that "the part of the facts charged in this case ", carrying dangerous articles," is not erroneous and applied to law," while recognizing all of the facts charged in this case. "Dangerous articles" includes all articles that can be used to harm people's life and body, and the phrase "Carrying such articles" includes not only possession but also widely used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 1997). Thus, the defendant is the defendant.