A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

Criminal power is currently under the suspended execution period as the defendant was sentenced to one year of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business in the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on June 21, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 29, 2013.

Criminal facts

Around 04:22 on February 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stated the victim E, who was working as an employee in the place of alcohol without any justifiable reason, that the Defendant expressed the victim E, “Cexe”, “E in the form of flag,” “ging flag,” “ging in the form of head,” “new flag without head,” “flag,” “flaging flag,” “flag without head,” “flag,” and “flag without head,” and interfered with the victim’s convenience store business by force for about 10 minutes, such as flaging the displayed flash, and flabing the victim into the place of flag, thereby obstructing the victim’s convenience store business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a statement of criminal records, inquiry reports (Attachment to the same type of judgment, etc.), high aid 2013 high aid and a copy of judgment 494, etc.;

1. The Defendant alleged that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the pertinent criminal facts, and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the selection of a sentence, and that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disorder. However, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the method and method of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the ability to

It is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a very weak or weak state, and even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, in light of the Defendant’s criminal records, etc., it is determined that the Defendant did not refrain from drinking despite having been well aware that he was highly likely to engage in violent behavior when he was drunk. This is an exception to the restriction on the ability to assume responsibility under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.