However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 30, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a result of the crime of interference with business from the Suwon District Court’s branch on October 30, 2009, a summary order of KRW 2 million as a result of the crime of interference with business in the same court on June 21, 2010, and a summary order of KRW 1 million as a result of the crime of interference with business in the same court on April 1, 2014, respectively.

On March 8, 2014, around 14:10, the Defendant demanded that the Victim D, in the Emart operated by the Emart, the victim D in the Sart City, sent a small amount of 1 week and 1 Amck-ck-ck-kin, but, as the Defendant was refused from F, an employee of the Empt, the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance, such as driving away from customers who found the said Mart.

Although the Defendant continued to have returned to the police officer upon receipt of a report, the Defendant found the said marina, and could not enter the said marina by avoiding disturbance, such as “I ambling off” and “I ambling off” in front of the marina entrance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's marina business by force over about 40 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the injured party does not want the punishment of the accused and reflects his mistake);

1. Order to attend lectures under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;