A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On March 12, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual damage, etc. to property) at the Seoul Eastern District Court (Seoul Eastern District Court) and completed the execution of the sentence at the Sungdong detention center on September 8, 2015.

around 18:00 on March 11, 2016, the Defendant found the D restaurant located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and expressed a bath to the victim E (the 60-year-old age) who is the main agent of the restaurant, and took a bath to the victim E (the 60-year-old age). The Defendant was drunk from the victim F (the 58-year-old age-old customer) who is the customer.

“Along with the word “,” a knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif knif

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police to F and E;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Photographs;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries by the accused, such as legal statements, criminal history, etc., inquiry reports (report on attachment of suspect rulings and details of execution of punishment), personal identifications and confinements;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 261, 260(1) (a) (a point of special assault) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (a point of interference with business) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts; the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the following reasons:

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 37 former part, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act aggravated concurrent crimes, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant had been under the influence of alcohol, loss of confidence, or mental or physical weakness at the time of the instant crime. However, in light of the background and details of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances, etc., the Defendant is drunk.