[criminal power] On September 14, 2018, the Defendant sentenced the Suwon District Court to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, and completed the execution of the sentence in the female prison on February 10, 2019.

【Criminal Facts】

On May 24, 2019, at around 23:30 on May 24, 2019, the Defendant: (a) took a drinking at the “D’s main point of the Victim C operation in Suwon-si B, without any justifiable reason, and (b) took a bath to the customers, “Isk you need to die only once from the scar, Isk, and scarke,” and (c) let the customers at the said main point give the above main points by avoiding the disturbance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force for about one hour.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the police about C (victim);

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment to previous records and judgments), application of statutes governing judgment;

1. Article 314 (1) of the relevant Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the multiple-choice Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing of the proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to ten years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of punishment [the range of punishment] of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines] interference with the affairs [the category 1] interference with the affairs (the special person]: Reduction factors of the punishment (including serious efforts to recover damage): Reduction area of the same repeated crime [the recommended area and the scope of the recommended punishment], and one month through eight months of imprisonment.

3. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the following: (a) the Defendant’s decision to sentence the instant crime reflects the instant crime; (b) the victim did not want the punishment against the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s economic situation is not good.

On the other hand, the defendant did not commit the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime for which three months have passed since completion of the execution of imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and the defendant committed violence including interference with business.