A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea from March 19, 2020 to March 23, 2020, and completed a trip from the Republic of Korea on March 19, 2020 and passed an examination at the public health clinic of Pyeongtaek-si on March 27, 2020, and was identified as a person who is identified as a person infected with the cona-19 Pyeongtaek-19 Pyeongtaek-2, 2020.

No person shall intentionally omit or destroy facts in an epidemiological investigation conducted by the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

Nevertheless, on March 28, 2020, the Defendant intentionally omitted and discarded the fact that the Defendant had taken part in the E stores located in Pyeongtaek-siD and the nearby pel restaurant from March 23, 2020 to March 27, 2020, using the phone calls three times from the epidemian epidemiological investigation officer to the epidemian epidemiological investigation officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F of the defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of CCTV data-related statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases, Articles 79 subparagraph 1 and 18 (3) 3 of the Act on the Prevention of Contagious Diseases, the Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor;

1. In light of the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, and the high infectious and risk of infectious diseases with the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, strict punishment is required for acts obstructing infectious disease prevention activities by intentionally concealing or omitting facts from the competent authority’s epidemiological investigation to identify the route of transmitting the above infectious disease and prevent additional dissemination.

However, there is no evidence that the defendant recognized the crime and divided his mistake, that there is no previous conviction, that there is no additional person due to the abolition of the defendant's fact, and that there is no other evidence to prove that there are other factors of sentencing as shown in the trial process of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.