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

The Defendant asserted that, around 13:30 on February 28, 2014, the victim D’s “E bicycle” operated by the victim D in Silung-si, Sinung-si, was drunk and, on the ground that the victim was her bicycle on the front road, the victim her walked with a bicycle that had been put in the place of assembly and assembly, and the Defendant took a bicycle with the wind that has lost balance in the body of the drunk, but the Defendant does not accept it in light of the witness F’s legal statement, etc.

This was humping from F customers F, and the above F was trying to drive the above F on board, and use the phone phone of the above F on board the victim, and the victim was able to control it, and therefore, he was humping with the large sound called “A, B, C, C, C, E, E, B, and C, E, E, E, B, and C, which were on the Kabter, and was humping the floor by humping the house equipment, such as the telephone, sound boxes, etc. on the Kabter by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's bicycle riding business by force for about 20 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning D and F;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the scene of damage;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) and Article 313 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2(2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, Etc., is a case where the Defendant exercised force while under the influence of her size, thereby obstructing the victim’s business. The Defendant has not yet recovered from the victim’s business. In light of the unfavorable circumstances, the Defendant’s overall commission of the crime is extremely similar, and the Defendant’s perception of the crime is against the depth of his mistake. The damage itself resulting from the instant crime is