On October 10, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with labor at the Seoul Eastern District Court for the crime of interference with business, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on February 22, 2014.

On June 2014, the Defendant entered the “E” restaurant for the victim D (the age of 56) operated in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant business operation over 12 times in total from the above date to April 4, 2015, including: (a) the Defendant: (b) deemed that the victim D (the age of 56) was “E”); (c) deemed that the customers would not drink alcohol; and (d) expressed the victim’s desire to refrain from drinking; (b) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business operation by force; and (c) interfered with the victim’s restaurant business operation on 12 occasions, as indicated in the list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of the F, D, G, H, I, J, K, and L;

1. Written statements;

1. Investigation into confirmation of details of handling reports on internal investigation (12 reported cases);

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records, investigation reports (verification as to whether they correspond to the period of repeated crime), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning personal identification and confinement of each copy of the judgment;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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

1. The circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that increase concurrent crimes appear to be a substitute for mistake, and the situation where the victims do not have any tangible damage due to each of the crimes of this case: there are several criminal records of the same kind even before they were committed several times, and in particular, they repeatedly committed each of the crimes of this case since several months after the completion of the execution of the sentence due to the crime of interference with business, etc., and each of the crimes of this case appears to have caused considerable apprehensions and fears by the victims, their employees, and customers, by committing each of the crimes of this case, in view of the method of the crime, frequency of the crime, the number of victims, and the number of victims, and the violent tendency of the defendant as expressed therein.