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

On July 3, 2015, from around 11:30 to 12:25 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of alcohol in order for the victim to talk with the Defendant and to change his phone number; and (b) even after the victim was requested from the victim, the Defendant continued to drive the victim; and (c) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in order for the victim to talk with the Defendant and change his phone number; and (d) the Defendant was not under the influence of driving the victim; (b) the Defendant was able to drive the victim, and (c) the Defendant was not under the influence of the other. The Defendant was absolutely falling off. The Defendant interfered with the victim’s care business by avoiding the disturbance, such as “the fluened farb

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 crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act is that the defendant led to the instant crime, and that the defendant agreed with the victim, but the defendant has many records of punishment for the same kind of crime, such as recent violence and obstruction of business, etc., shall be comprehensively taken into account, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of the following sentencing criteria.

[Standard for Sentencing] - Types 1 (Interference with Business) and 8 (Interference with Business). - The area of mitigation (one to August) - The area of punishment not subject to special mitigation (including serious efforts to recover damage)