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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 29, 2013, while under the influence of alcohol around 21:45, the Defendant: (a) entered the convenience store for operation of the Victim D (30 years old) in Gunsan-si; (b) stated that the Defendant “Isker anywhere the beer is, why the beer is, and whether the beer is, or whether the beer is, or whether the beer is, ever,” and called “Isker,” and held the victim’s bath, such as “Isker-sicker, freshing, so that Is the victim’s can spath, and spaths, etc., displayed on the above convenience points.” (c) On September 29, 2013, the Defendant was unable to enter the above convenience points until September 22, 2013 when the police officer received a report.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the victim's convenience store operation by force over approximately 25 minutes, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as salt dump, tension, etc., which requires approximately 2 weeks of medical treatment by dumping the victim's bomb.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to F;

1. Recording recording;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a photograph and bodily injury certificate;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as follows)

1. The Defendant, with the reason of sentencing Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, has the ability to punish the instant crime even in relation to the act of violence, and even though there are many criminal records, he again committed the instant crime.

In addition, even after committing the crime of this case, the defendant took an attitude to justify his own prior conviction and the crime of this case, not to reflect seriously on his tendency that combines the crime of this case and repeats the illegal act.

Accordingly, the defendant has an opportunity to reflect against the defendant.