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

On July 8, 2016, at around 03:25, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force for 15 minutes, such as the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol at the E-cafeteria operated by the victim D (n, 71 years of age) in Suwon-si C, and was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of the victim’s restaurant business by force when the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of the influence of 15 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending sentence] The reason for the sentencing [the grounds for sentencing] under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of recommending sentence] interference with the business, [the person who has been specially mitigated] [the decision of sentencing] the mitigated area (including one month to eight months), the defendant's efforts to recover from damage] recognizes and reflects his mistake, and the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, and there was no record of criminal punishment for the crime of interference with business, but there was no record of criminal punishment for several times due to violence, damage of property, other defendants' age, character and behavior, environment, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.