However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 31, 2017, at around 04:20, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s convenience store business by force over about 1:30 minutes and 30 minutes of time, such as taking a ice cream and a scream, etc. without paying the price, and taking things to bring about and calculate other female customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (referring to the part of favorable circumstances for sentencing as follows):

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Where the basic area (from June to one year and six months) (special mitigation/increased) of the sentencing criteria [the scope of recommended punishment] and the degree of interference with duties is heavy;

2. Based on the above sentencing criteria, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in full view of the following factors, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, and motive of crime:

The statement that the victim made a statement that he/she is favorable confession and reflects a normal confession (the page 31 page of the investigation record) that he/she would not want the punishment of the defendant, was dispatched to the police that interfere with his/her business in a very poor way for a considerable period of time against the disadvantage of the defendant, and returned the defendant once again, but he/she was aware of the fact that the crime is very poor, such as finding out the convenience store and breaking his/her behavior, and other criminal records that he/she would be subject to punishment, and that it