A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 13, 2014, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the performance of official duties at the Gwangju District Court, etc. on August 13, 2014, and was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the performance of official duties at the same court on June 30, 2015

7. 16. The judgment of the above suspension of execution became final and conclusive, and the execution of each sentence was terminated on February 21, 2016.

On September 15, 2017, the Defendant, at around 23:42, entered the “Cel” located in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and sought from the victim D, who is an employee, the Defendant: (a) expressed that he did not have any frequent room; (b) she saw the victim’s voice as “Ig, this kid,” and interfered with the victim’s maternal business by force for about 30 minutes, such as “Ig, this kid” and “Ig,” and “Igth, this kid,” and “Ig,” and was in the front of the Kater.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each statement prepared by the D and E;

1. Images of evidence photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of respective Acts and subordinate statutes stated in a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (the same previous convictions);

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

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act of aggravated repeated crimes does not relatively focus on the degree of interference with the reason for sentencing, and the defendant agreed with the victim.

However, the defendant had the same criminal record of 10 times, and the defendant received a fine of 5 million won as a sound member of society after receiving the treatment of proof of alcohol which seems to have affected the crime on April 13, 2017 with respect to the obstruction of business affairs recommended by the third party on April 13, 2017.

In addition, the sentencing conditions shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.