1. At around 14:10 on February 11, 2020, the Defendant: (a) demanded the victim C (the 73-year-old) to drink at “D cafeteria”; (b) on the ground that the victim tolds that “I would drink in other places because I would have taken a large amount of alcohol; (c)” the Defendant sent the victim a bath, such as “I would like to drink and funeral,” and “I would like to dume the victim’s disease in the air conditioned.”

Although police officers who received 112 reports were dispatched, the Defendant continued to interfere with the victim’s restaurant business by force by avoiding a disturbance of about 15 minutes, such as taking a hings to the victim and gathering a hinginging to a hings, thereby obstructing other customers from entering the restaurant.

2. The Defendant damaged the property owned by the victim by putting the victim’s possession market value of the victim, which was accumulated by the entrance, as set forth in paragraph (1) above, at the same time and at the same place as set forth in paragraph (1) above, by putting the victim’s hand up on the floor, 730 won per annum.

Summary of Evidence

1. Notification of a written statement E of the police statement of the defendant C concerning the defendant's legal statement to the police statement, notification of a department related to reporting the 112 Incident, application of statutes on the site

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The sentence shall be imposed in consideration of the following facts: (a) the reasons for sentencing selective punishment of the sentence under Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act shall be based on the defendant's reasons for sentencing of the sentence; and (b) the victim shall not be punished for the defendant in the police investigation; and (c) the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the favorable circumstances in which the victim