beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
The seized Aluminium luminium 4 glus (No. 1) and wooden camping nets.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal records] On December 30, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Seoul Central District Court on December 30, 2005 and completed the execution of the above punishment on April 8, 2006.
[2] Around 00:30 on February 19, 2007, the Defendant shared with B and C, and on the front road of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, there was a time limit for the Defendant to change the face of the Defendant and the victim E (28 years of age) and F (28 years of age). The above B 4,5 times of 5 times of 1,2 times of 1,2 of 1,2 of 1,2 of 1,2 of 1, and of 1,2 of 1,2 of 1,2 of 1,2 of 1,2 of 207 of 207 of 207 of 207 of 207 of 207 of 207 of 207 of 200, the Defendant and C, together with her head and f of e, e.g., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., 4, 5 hours of e.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Court rulings (Seoul Central District Court 2007No. 2593), and the text of the judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2007 High Court Order 1453);
1. Previous convictions: The records of the above judgment and the status of acceptance by individuals [the records of the case subject to review, even if the records of the case subject to review were already destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period, shall be restored to the records by making every possible effort, and where it is inevitable to completely restore the records, the evidence in the original judgment, which can be known by the remaining materials collected, including the written judgment, and the value of the newly submitted evidence in the retrial procedure, shall be comprehensively assessed, and the propriety of the original judgment shall be newly determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004, etc.). In this case, the records of the case subject to review have already been destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period, and the evidence of the original judgment, which can be known in the