A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:40 on March 29, 2014, the Defendant expressed, without any justifiable reason, the victim’s Ecafeteria operated in Nam-si, Nam-si without the influence of alcohol to the customers at the place, “Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reports (related to written agreements and estimates for damage);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. From among concurrent crimes, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, among concurrent crimes, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two months for the sake of obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. in 209, and the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though 20 times for the same crime, such as being sentenced to a three-time fine in 2013, despite the fact that he/she had been punished more than 20 times for the same crime, and even without recognizing his/her mistake at all, it is necessary to punish the Defendant solemnly.

However, the order is issued in consideration of the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the proceedings of this case, such as age, character and behavior, and environment.