beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On May 20, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) at the Busan District Court on May 20, 2008, and was sentenced to eight months for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (a crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.) at the Ulsan District Court on June 4, 2009, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 28, 2010, and the said suspended sentence was terminated on October 5, 201.
I. The Defendant of the 2013 Highest 1524 [2013 Highest 1524] is a person who runs a "news" business that supplies Acc to amusement establishments in Kimhae-si C, and is a person who is taking the lead of "D", who is a member of the group of the media-based business.
1. Around July 2012, the Defendant committed a crime against the victim E, with the knowledge that the victim E (Nam and 22 years of age) runs a “news store business” in the Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si without the Defendant’s permission, and had the victim assaulted the victim to stop a “news store” business.
On July 2012, at around 07:00, the Defendant got the victim to the front of the “F” restaurant located in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and, on the part of the victim, the Defendant boardedd the car driven by the victim, saying, “I shall do so with the victim’s head, face part, etc. of the victim’s head and face part of the victim’s drinking.” On the other hand, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim who got the victim to drink on the front of the “F” restaurant located in the Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and caused the victim to go to the victim’s head, face part, etc. of the victim’s drinking.
2. On December 30, 2012, the Defendant committed the crime against Victim G refers to the following actions: (a) around 05:00 on December 30, 2012, at the first week operated by Victim G (Nam, 33 years old); (b) on the ground that female Dominant who was in company with the Defendant did not fall under the second 'second 'the ' second 'the 'the 'the ' second 'the 'the 'the 'the ' of sexual traffic', the female Dominant who was in company with the Defendant was in company with the Defendant.’