A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 31, 2019, the Defendant sentenced the Ulsan District Court to six months of imprisonment for the obstruction of performance of official duties, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Ulsan Detention House on June 23, 2019.

1. Around 08:40 on July 30, 2019, the Defendant demanded to stop a taxi at the Nam-gu Art Center in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-gu”).

The Defendant: (a) intending to leave the taxi operated by the victim without paying the fare; (b) seeed that he would pay the taxi fee from the victim; and (c) assaulted the victim on three occasions on the face of the victim with his hand.

2. On the date, time, and place indicated in paragraph 1, the Defendant: (a) committed an act as if the victim had no intent to pay the taxi fee even if he/she gets on and operates the said taxi; and (b) intended to leave the taxi on the job without paying KRW 5,000 without paying the taxi fee, after getting on and driving the said taxi to the private distance of the Southern-gu Art Center.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, acquired the same amount of monetary benefits from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The receipt of taxi rates and the photograph of damage therefrom;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records and written judgments;

1. Articles 347 (1) and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Among concurrent offenders, the degree of damage of this case is relatively minor for the reason of sentencing of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act. However, even though there was a record of multiple times of punishment due to the Defendant’s primary violence, the fact that the instant crime was committed again during the same repeated offense period, and the damage recovery or damage recovery.