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

Around 03:10 on April 8, 2019, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim D, an employee of the above restaurant, “I will tear see see her gals, hump hump hump hump hump, pump hump hump hump,” and (b) expressed her hump in large interest, and interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force for about 40 minutes from around that time, including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff’s hump hump to hump by taking the bath to the customers who had been outside of the restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (CCTV analysis);

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act include the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; the fact that the Defendant again committed an offense of interference with business by drinking alcohol despite having been punished by a fine as an assault around January 2019; and the fact that the other party did not commit an act of destroying water, but did not commit an act of causing fear of fear, is disadvantageous.

However, the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, after considering the fact that the defendant recognized the crime, the victim of the crime of interference with business and the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant in consultation with the owner of the crime of interference with business, etc., shall