A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in this case, regarding the aggravated punishment of specific crimes.

Punishment of the crime

On November 16, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul Seoul High Court to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) and completed the execution of the sentence on March 14, 2013 at the Seoul Detention House.

At around 13:00 on March 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) stated that the Defendant was punished by filing a victim’s report at the F cafeteria operated by the victim E located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant was unable to enter the Defendant’s forum, stating that “The Defendant would have to live more than twice the amount of the Defendant’s complaint in the house.”

The Defendant, as seen above, went back to the Defendant, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force over 4 to 5 times during approximately 2 hours, such as leaving the pedal, going back again, and leaving the pedal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Data on reported telephone calls concerning violence against victims EM;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a copy of judgment (Seoul High Court Decision 2012No3341, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 Godan4097), criminal records, etc.;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 314 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. On November 16, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment by the Seoul High Court for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) at the Seoul High Court on March 14, 2013, and obstructed the Defendant’s business by finding the victim of this case on the day of release without being aware of the completion of the enforcement of the sentence, and at the same time, at the Seoul High Court’s detention center, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s business, and it is not very good that the Defendant was serving as a repeated offender as above.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the defendant never denies the crime of this case and repeatedly commits the crimes of the same kind.