beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[2012 short-term 4] The Defendant, as the chairperson of the “C” organization of the Disabled and Disabled and Disabled and Disabled and the Defendant: (a) around April 2010, the Defendant: (b) around 2010, as an incorporated association, which is entrusted with D business from the Gyeongnam-do, issued a disposition of deprivation of qualification and suspension against 16 members of C, on the ground of voluntary manipulation of activities; and (c) caused disputes arising therefrom.
The Defendant followed up to several visits and demanded the resolution of the above dispute in the Gyeongnam-do by means of holding one person's own opinions before the opening of the Do Office of the Do Office of the Do. On January 18, 2011, the Defendant occupied 50 persons, such as disabled persons, etc. on or around 13:30 on January 18, 201, occupied the plenary session of the Do Council of the Gyeongnam-do, and was also punished for about 3:45 minutes and about 15 minutes on the same day.
After that, on January 20, 201, the results of the public hearing by the Do Council on the opening of the Do Council on March 20, 201, the Gyeongnam-do Council requested the Do Council to conduct a special audit on the above issues to the Do Gyeongnam-do, and the parties concerned "C" and "E" decided to accept the audit results. On February 201, 201, the Inspector General notified the result of the audit, such as "the payment of allowances, if it is reasonable through restoration to Do Do unqualified and the verification," but on March 2011, the results of the audit conducted by the Do Gyeongnam-do Do Do 's office, the fact that it is impossible for the Gyeongnam-do Do 's office to pay allowances to the defendant on May 4, 2011.
The Defendant, on May 201, was unable to accept the results of the ordinary south-do’s due diligence, demanded “the permission and operating expenses of a corporation, support of security deposit, etc., and designation of an institution providing Do-U.S. services” instead of claiming Do-U.S. allowance, but it was difficult for the Defendant to seek answers such as acceptance review or disapproval, etc., and to pressure Do-U.S. by punishing assemblies and demonstrations in order to fulfill the requirements.
1. Violation of the matters to be observed by the organizer;