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 February 19, 2017, the Defendant, at the main point of "D" operated by the Victim C in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, around 22:40 on February 19, 2017, presented the Victim C's C', ordering alcohol and food, and presented the Victim C's C's C', but did not settle due to the shortage of the balance.

The defendant, who is requested by the injured party to pay the food cost properly from the injured party, stated that the victim "this kind of life" is "this kind of life", changed E as another customer, and "I am this person."

Along with approximately one-hour period, such as “satisfy”, there was a disturbance.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (or telephone investigation for a witness E);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and order to attend lectures;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to five years;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall interfere with the affairs of the recommendation [the scope of the punishment], the area of mitigation (one month to eight months) [the person subject to special mitigation], the area of punishment not subject to punishment (including the advanced efforts to recover damage);

3. The punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., in the sense that the records of punishment as a result of obstructing the decision-making of the sentence are two times the suspension of the sentence of imprisonment, five times the fine, and that there are several times the records of punishment as violent crimes, and that the injured person does not want the punishment of the defendant in agreement with the injured person;