A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 17, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 19:00, on the street in front of Suwon-si, Suwon-si B, and (b) obstructed the victims D (n, 56 years of age) who were passing through their places, with the reason that they are bad and bad, and (c) took a look at a time, and assaulted the victims on two occasions, such as the victims E (22 years of age) who were frightened by the Defendant, on a drinking basis; and (b) assaulted the victims on two occasions, such as the victims E (22 years of age) who frighted the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of D, E, and F;

1. A report on investigation (a statement of each victim);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on internal investigation;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. The scope of the final sentence due to the increase of multiple offenses for which no basic area (two months to ten months) exists (special sentencing factors) of Category 1 (hereinafter referred to as "special sentencing factors"): The scope of the sentencing guidelines compared with the recommended sentences for two months to one year: February 1: the scope of the sentence compared with the recommended sentences for three months: February to March 2: February 1: January 1 to March 3;

2. Although the determination of sentence appears to be a contingent crime, the nature of the crime is very poor due to the crime of assaulting those who passed without any reason.

The record of punishment for violence-related crimes (the crime of interference with duties, interference with the execution of official duties, damage to public goods, assault, damage to property, and damage to special property) has been five times, and the crime of this case has been committed again even before the previous conviction sentenced to imprisonment due to a crime of fraud, even after one time.

In light of the details and contents of the crime, and the criminal record, it is difficult to achieve the purpose of punishment, which is special prevention, due to a fine or a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, even when considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected, strict punishment is inevitable.