However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 30, 2016, the Defendant: (a) from around 22:00 to around 01:00 on May 30, 2016, the victim D operated by Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “E”; (b) ordered drinking and drinking alcohol to the customers, and kiddding them with an intention to talk with the other customers; and (c) interfered with the victim’s main business by force for about three hours by avoiding disturbance, i.e., talking other customers with an desire to talk with the other customers, and talking with sound.

around 23:20 on October 17, 2016, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victims by saying, “The victim G and H, a police official called “I, J, and K,” who were sent to the police on the street in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, upon receipt of the 112 report, for the reason that they are bad.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each statement, each investigation report, and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the complaint;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (Consideration, such as the reflection of the fact, the fact agreed with the victim of the obstruction of business, and the fact that there has been no previous conviction exceeding the fine);