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 April 2, 2016, around 18:30, the Defendant demanded the victim C to sit next to the victim in the “D” operated by the victim C at Jeju, but the victim was refused to sit. However, the Defendant saw the victim as being able to take a bath in large sound and boomed on the floor, and kidd against the customers on the side, and kidd against the beer’s disease.

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. A report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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 stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for observation of protection;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall interfere with the affairs, and the basic area (from June to January to June) (no person subject to special sentencing) shall exist;

2. The defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, method and degree of interference with duties, results, circumstances after committing the crime, various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case shall be taken into account. In particular, considering the following circumstances, the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines shall be set as the order, and the defendant, even though he had a record of being sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months due to interference with duties at the Central District Court on September 4, 2008, the defendant committed the crime of this case, even though he had a record of being sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months due to interference with duties at the Central District Court on September 4, 2008, and the victim did not recover from damage, and the victim failed to receive from the injured person for committing the crime of this case, thereby wanting to punish the defendant.

The favorable circumstances: The defendant confessions the crime of this case and repents his mistake.