beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On February 13, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc., a deadly weapon, etc.) and on June 11, 2014, the same court was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., (a violation of a group, a deadly weapon, etc.) and on January 21, 2015, ten times in total.
【Criminal Facts】
According to the records that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to stimulative disorder, alcohol dependence, etc., the Defendant continued to drink for three days without sufficiently taking the mental and medical substance at the time of committing the instant crime, even though it is necessary to provide constant medical treatment because the Defendant suffers from stimulative disorder, alcohol dependence, etc., and the Defendant seems to have committed the instant crime under the state that he lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to stimulative disorder, alcohol dependence, etc.
In addition, the following crimes have been committed.
1. On March 18, 2015, at the point of “E” operated by the victim D, who is in the Government City C, on March 18, 2015, the Defendant ordered two-way disease as if he did not have any intent or ability to pay the drinking value due to his failure to hold money, and as if he did not have any intent or ability to pay the drinking value, the Defendant was issued one-way disease from the victim, namely, at the victim’s seat, equivalent to KRW 140,000 at the market price.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. On March 18, 2015, from around 01:30 to around 01:50 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with the business, on the ground that the victim was “E” as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1), and on the ground that the victim was “the calculation of the drinking value”, the Defendant saw the victim and his employee F as “the victim and his employee was “the bit of bitchhum, fluorh, fluorh, fluorh, fluorhh,” and that the victim and the employee F was “the bit