A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On February 26, 2018. 15:20 on February 26, 2018, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the victim D, the chief examination officer of the above Association, was not at the fifth level in Busan East-gu C Association B, Busan-dong, the Defendant did not harm the victim D, the examination officer of the above Association; (b) the employees of the above Association; and (c) the customer 20 persons, the Defendant “

“A large sound,” and the injured party has been notified of the reasons why it is not possible to see the inside of the said Association, but continues to engage in a large sound as above, and the hacker’s hacks’s hacks’ hacks’ hacks and hacks’ hacks, and the injured party’s hacks’ hacks’

The term “the victim’s clothes” and “the victim’s 30 minutes of disturbance, i.e., cutting away the name cards of the victim’s clothes and seeds, and interfered with the management of the said Association by force by avoiding disturbances between about 30 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the investigation report (2,6) at least once;

1. The reason for sentencing (the scope of recommended punishment) of Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts is [the grounds for sentencing] [the grounds for sentencing [the scope of recommended punishment] of type 1 (Interference with Business] [the person subject to special mitigation] of mitigation area (including efforts to recover damage] [the decision of sentence] of non-permanent punishment [the fact that the degree of interference with business again prevents a criminal act of the same kind that is not easy to interfere with the trial process and denies the criminal act in which the degree of interference with business is not easy, and even if the criminal act is committed in the trial process, it is unfair that it is highly unfavorable that it is possible to repeat the crime because it is not easy to say that it would not interfere with the trial proceeding or impair the authority of the trial, etc.

Although the victim did not go against the defendant again, the age of the defendant is relatively high even though he did not receive the apology.