208 Highest 1577 Injury, interference with business, damage to property

A

X

Attorneys Y (Korean National Assembly)

May 13, 2008

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months. 52 days under confinement prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Criminal facts

On January 16, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for the crime of causing property damage at the Busan District Court, and the decision was confirmed on October 19 of the same year and is still under probation.

1. Damage to property and interference with business;

피고인은 2007. 1. 하순 20:00경 부산 부산진구 a시장 내 뒷길에 있는 피해자 B, C가 운영하는 상호 없는 노점에서 피해자 C가 "술이 많이 취하였으니 술을 팔지 않겠다."라고 말하자 화가 나 "야 이 씨발년아 술 달라면 주지 왜 안 주노?"라고 큰소리치면서 피해자들 소유인 시가 300,000원 상당의 어묵, 떡볶이, 순대가 담겨 있는 솥을 바닥에 집어던져 위 어묵 등을 쏟아버리는 등 소란을 피워 노점에 있던 손님들을 쫓아내고 다른 손님들을 들어오지 못하게 하였다.

As such, the Defendant destroyed the victims’ property and interfered with the victims’ occupation and business by force.

2. Damage to property, injury, and interference with business;

피고인은 2008. 3. 22. 19:50경 위와 같은 장소에서 같은 이유로 화가 나 피해자들의 소유인 시가 100,000원 상당의 어묵, 떡볶이, 순대가 담겨 있는 솥을 바닥에 집어던져 위 어묵 등을 쏟아버리고, 피해자 B가 이를 말린다는 이유로 화가 나 오른쪽 주먹으로 피해자의 왼쪽 뺨과 머리를 수회 때리고, 주먹과 발로 왼쪽 옆구리를 3회 때리는 등 소란을 피워 노점에 손님들이 오지 못하게 하였다.

As such, the Defendant damaged the victims’ property, caused the two-day medical treatment to the victims, and obstructed the victims’ occupation and operation of their occupation and occupation by force.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 366, 314(1), and 257(1) of the Criminal Act

2. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

4. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

5. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

As stated in the first head of the judgment, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence for the crime of causing property damage for six months as stated in the judgment. Furthermore, the Defendant already committed the instant crime on November 9, 2006, despite having been sentenced to a fine of three million won due to the crime of causing property damage, or causing property damage, or a fine of one million won due to the crime of causing property damage on July 6, 2007, or one million won due to the crime of causing property damage on March 25, 2008, and was charged with a summary sentence on March 25, 2008. Examining the contents of the instant case, the Defendant continuously committed the instant crime against the merchants in a market. The victims and market merchants of the instant case committed the instant crime without being informed of the previous criminal punishment, despite the fact that it is difficult to recognize the need for the Defendant to voluntarily commit the instant crime, such as the Defendant’s consent to commit the instant crime, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s voluntary confession and the Defendant did not know of such circumstances.

Judges Kang Han-sung