On February 3, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor by the Ulsan District Court for interference with business affairs, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 22, 2017.

On January 16, 2017, at the “D cafeteria” operated by the victim C in Yangsan-si B around 01:50 on January 16, 2017, the Defendant, without any particular reason, seems to show to the customers on other table b, that “the flab in which the flaz to Chewing flab flab is o,” but, at the same time, the flab flab flab flab wal

In the name of the frop frop frop. The frop frop. The frop frop. The frop frop frop, which the frop frop frop frop frop frop, was froped by the victim of this frop, and frop frop, which read as “this frop frob

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry about criminal history, reporting of the previous convictions in disposition, and reporting of the results, and applying statutes to the results of the conet case search;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That Article 39(1) [Sentencing] of the same type of crime and the risk of repeating a crime shall be comprehensively taken into account; however, Article 37 of the same type of crime and Article 37 of the same Act are single concurrent crimes; and Article 37 of the same Act and Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which sets the punishment as set forth in the order, by taking into account the agreement with the victim, the background of the crime, and the degree