A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, with respect to the compensation for obstacles to road works in the astronomical City, has raised complaints on the grounds that a public official in charge of viewing does not accept his request, and has expressed his mind to damage the object of viewing;

1. On May 1, 2014, around 12:30, 156, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 156, and piracy (1m in length) which is a dangerous object purchased from a nearby steel store for the purpose of destroying a whistle, and entered a 9th floor construction road and office, into a structure; and

2. At the same time, at the same place, damage was made from several times the books of the C Team D’s office work at a market price equivalent to KRW 274,00,00, which is the ownership of the victim’s tent with the money described in the preceding paragraph, which is a dangerous object.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the prosecution and the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to E, D, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning field photographs and product shop information;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Considering that the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is both the fact of crime and the fact that there was no record of having been sentenced, and that it does not inflict any bodily harm on public officials, the instant case is a serious criminal act that can not be used for any reason on the grounds that the Defendant’s complaint regarding the handling of the duty to compensate for viewing is a case where the Defendant intrudes the government office with piracy, which is the remainder of dangerous articles, and damages the equipment, in light of the risk of the means of crime and the result of the crime, and the nature and circumstances of the crime, as it is not easy to use for any reason.

Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to punishment.