However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On April 27, 2018, at around 20:00, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim’s desire at a “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City; (b) expressed the victim’s desire without any justifiable reason under the influence of alcohol; and (c) opened the water table and the transit gate on the floor, and prevented the Defendant from gaining a disturbance for about 30 minutes, and entering the restaurant.

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

2. In a “D” restaurant located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 27, 2018, around 20:32, the Defendant, upon receiving a report from the head of the said restaurant C and his employees, sent out to the victim guardF and the victim guard G of the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station E District, who called out after receiving the report from the head of the said restaurant, with the content that the Defendant was a customer who frightd in the restaurant.

A resident registration certificate shackers shacked shacks, shacks, hacks, hacks, hacks, hacks.

Accordingly, the defendant insultd the victims openly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (joint crimes of insult);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (a) that the criminal defendant would not repeat the same mistake as the criminal defendant would refrain from drinking in the future;

In addition, in agreement with the victim of the obstruction of business, the victim is not subject to punishment for the defendant, and the majority of the victims are not prior to violence but has no criminal records exceeding fine).