A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 17, 2018, at around 04:00, the Defendant damaged “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 17, 2018, the Defendant: (a) opened several times in the direction of a camera with other customers, which contain food on the table; and (b) damaged a scambling machine in the market price installed in the car box; and (c) damaged the scambling machine by making food scam in remote areas to go away.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the date and time set forth in paragraph 1, and at the place set forth in paragraph 12, sent out a 112 report, and asked the police officer F to check his identity from the police officer F belonging to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station E District, which was called out, and sent a f to the front floor, containing food on the F’s working clothes, and assault F’s chest part once in his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of public peace and order of police officers, prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. G documents;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by capturing CCTV images;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, has been subject to multiple criminal punishments for the same kind of crime, etc., and committed the instant crime during the suspended execution period after having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the commission of an assault by a driver.

Although the crime of this case is not a violence in which a person is directly left, it has a large strength of force.

On the other hand, the defendant does not want to punish the defendant by agreement with the victim of damage to property.

The punishment shall be determined as per the order in consideration of the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, focusing on the above.

Part 1. The dismissal of prosecution.