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

On November 25, 2016, at around 23:30, the Defendant 23:30, around Southyang-si, operated by the Victim C, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant operation by force over about 40 minutes, such as drinking, drinking, drinking, singing, singinginging, and singinginging down, singinginging down, singinginging down, etc., the Defendant, without any justifiable reason. The Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant operation by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Entry of C’s statement;

1. On-site photographs, descriptions of investigation reports (victim C telephone investigation reports), and the application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2(2) of the Social Service Order Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] and Article 59 of the same Act [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] [the scope of recommended sentences] From June to June, the defendant, who was sentenced to the suspension of execution for two years, has already been punished twice as a result of interference with his duties, and on October 13, 2014, the defendant committed the instant crime again at least one year after the termination of the suspended sentence, even though the court was sentenced to the suspension of execution for six months due to an indecent act by force, and was sentenced to one year after the end of the suspended sentence.

The defendant does not think that he/she would agree with a prosecutory investigator who has the right to agree, and he/she will impose a match fine.

There was no reflective appearance (38 pages of evidence records) and the Defendant did not actually make any effort to recover damage.

Considering these circumstances, there is no word that the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment.