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

On August 25, 2018, on the ground that around 23:20 on August 25, 2018, the Defendant was unable to have female employees paid in advance at the “D” singing shop operated by Ulsandong-gu, U.S. (hereinafter “D”) and around 20 minutes of customers, and the Defendant was unable to have them go to the victim on the front corridor of the Kade-gu, U.S., and had the customers go to a place at the entrance of the main entrance, and caused the Defendant to go to the outside of the main entrance, and caused the Defendant to go to the outside of the main entrance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force for about 40 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. Reporting on occurrence of a disaster;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 314 (1) of the Election of Imprisonment or Imprisonment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (hereinafter “the grounds for the remaining sentence”), which is favorable to the defendant;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including probation, community service order, and order to attend a meeting of the victim’s main entrance, is likely to obstruct the defendant’s duty of operation of the victim by avoiding disturbance, such as committing the disturbance of the victim’s main entrance at the entrance of the main entrance of the main entrance. In light of the method and form of the crime, the details and circumstances at the time of the crime, etc., the crime is not good, and there are many records of punishment for the same violent crime, and on May 12, 2017, the court had been sentenced one year of suspended sentence for the crime of this case on the grounds of interference with business on April 12, 2017, even if the defendant was sentenced one year of suspended sentence for the crime of this case on the grounds of crime of interference with business, and the responsibility for the crime is not somewhat less, and the possibility of criticism is not small.