A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

From March 2018, the Defendant has filed a complaint with the purport that there is no drinking water supply cost while frequently found in the D community service center located in Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu.

1. On April 26, 2018, the Defendant under the influence of alcohol around 11:10 on April 26, 2018, and found about 20 Hens' eggs to the above D community service center, and filed the above complaints, and 3 eggs to the victim E in the general hall of the above community service center. The victim s' eggs to the above community service center floor of the above community service center. The victim s' eggs to the remaining month after he s' eggs to the above community service center floor of the above community service center. Around 11:40 on the same day, the Defendant s' eggs to the public officials who leave the above community service center with water as drinking, and thereby interfere with the performance of duties of the public officials working in the above community service center.

2. On May 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) spreads the coffee that he/she had on the face of the victim G at the above community service center for the foregoing reason at around 16:40 on May 4, 2018; and (b) thrown away the processed water.

further, there is also.

pesticide is likely to be discarded.

"A public official who works in the above community service center in a sound and intimidation to the public official of the above community service center shall interfere with the performance of his/her duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to G, H, and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to attachment of criminal images);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of defense counsel under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, the defense counsel held that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol when the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes with no mental and physical weakness.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant is somewhat drunk at the time of each of the crimes in this case.