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

Around 21:40 on February 10, 2016, the Defendant demanded that the victim C take two parts of the mouth in the “Datt” where the victim C works in Jeju-si, and the victim sought two parts of the mouth. While under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant saw that “I am slick and slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in writing C;

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

1. Normal circumstances that are favorable to the determination of punishment as ordered in consideration of the following circumstances: The scope of recommendation, sentence, [the scope of punishment [the crime interfering with business, the obstruction of business, the category 1 (Interference with business), the basic area, the imprisonment of June to 16] on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act and the following circumstances: The fact that there is a history of criminal punishment several times due to violence or the crime of interference with business: The degree of obstruction of power, the age, character, conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant;