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

On July 26, 2014, from around 20:55 to 21:10 on the same day, the Defendant took the influence of alcohol at the D restaurant operated by the victim C (L, 63 years old), and without any justifiable reason, made the said cafeteria to the victim of his name, who is a female guest in the said cafeteria, “hinginging, hinging, hinging, hinging, hinging, hinging, hinging, hinginging, hinginging, hinging, hinginging, hinginging, hinging, hinginging, hinginginging, hinginginginging, hinginginginginginging,” and the victim hing, “hing, hinginging, hinginginging, hinginginginginging, and making the said cafeteria to leave from the cafeteria.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order lies in the defendant having the same criminal records nine times. The crime of this case is a crime during the period of probation, which is disadvantageous to the defendant, and expressed the victim's intent of reflect, and there are favorable circumstances such as the agreement with the victim. Such circumstances include the degree of damage to the victim, the character and conduct of the defendant and the environment, and the various circumstances revealed during the pleading process of this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.