[criminal history] On January 14, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by interference with business by the Suwon Franchisor, etc., and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the said prison on May 22, 2015. On November 24, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by the same court due to an injury, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence at the Suwon Detention House on April 17, 2017.

[Criminal facts] The Defendant: (a) from February 12, 2018 to February 13:10, 2018, at the “D’ restaurant where the victim C works in Suwon-si B as an employee; and (b) without any reason, for customers who are drunk and are eating without drinking.”

In the balk's theory, it interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force, such as provoking a trial cost, and pushing a female customer's breast part by hand, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (Attachment to a copy of the previous judgment, a summary order, and a summary order), and the current status of acceptance of each individual;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. Persons whose area of mitigation (one month to eight months) is special mitigation (increased): Where the degree of interference with the affairs is insignificant / Where the degree of interference with the affairs is insignificant / Where a repeated crime of the same kind is insignificant;

2. Circumstances favorable to the accused shall be as follows:

The defendant is divided into and reflected in the crime of this case.

The degree of interference with the defendant's business is relatively minor.

Circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows:

Although the defendant had been sentenced to criminal punishment several times due to the same or similar crimes as stated in the judgment, he/she again committed the crime of this case during the period of the same repeated crime.

The defendant was tried for a crime that interfered with the duties of the defendant committed on July 2017.