1. Around July 28, 2015, at around 11:15, the Defendant: (a) exceeded a pursuant to the “Emart” operated by the victim D (hereinafter referred to as “Emart”) located in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon; (b) took the knife 1st and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife; and (c) threatened the victim of the knife

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

2. From August 15, 2015 to 18:10 on the same day, from around 18:00 on August 15, 2015 to around 18:10 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) opened the “H” restaurant of the victim G operation in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu; (b) demanded the victim to become the victim; (c) the Defendant collected a periodical liner on the table at the victim’s own 50,00 won of the market price; and (d) prevented the customer who entered the restaurant from entering the restaurant by avoiding disturbance, such as putting it out at the victim’s own disinfection machine, and destroying the glass of the disinfection machine.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property at the same time and interfered with the victim's restaurant operation by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G and D;

1. Investigation report (investigative records, No. 93, 94 pages);

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) An act under Article 1 of the judgment: Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act;

(b) An obstruction of business among the acts referred to in Article 2 of the judgment: Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act;

(c) The point of destruction among the acts referred to in Article 2 of the judgment: Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (a punishment imposed on a more severe crime of interference with duties and damage to another person and a punishment provided for in the crime of interference with business);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The defendant asserts that, among concurrent crimes, the defendant's assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime

In this regard, the records will be known.