A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On November 5, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor due to interference with business affairs in this court, and completed the execution of the sentence on July 18, 2016.

[2] On September 27, 2018, the Defendant 200: (a) 16:00 on September 27, 2018, the Defendant 30 minutes of a fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free fright-free

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate duties concerning the treatment of civil petitions by administrative officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to E and D;

1. Previous conviction: Inquiry about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning personal confinement;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes is that the Defendant: (a) was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor; (b) the Defendant, as in the subject of softening or his/her arms, to express the sex that could be unsatched by leaving a sofeted by a public official, or by going to the office, and thereby disturbing public duties; and (c) committed serious destruction to others; or (d) the tendency at the time of the public authority. In addition, with the awareness of repeated warning, if he/she considers the above aggravated person’s weight as well as the awareness of repeated warning, it is difficult to view that the above aggravated person’s weight is sacrificeing the safety of duties leading to the fear of malicious civil petitions, or that the public tolerance or power is allowed until he/she leaves the office after going to protect female workers from the danger of repeated insult and unsatising.

In this case, it is necessary to distinguish the cases of obstructing the performance of official duties at night or on the street in relation to the wrong drinking culture, and there is an increase in similar crimes for government offices in recent years.