On February 3, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor by the Busan District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on March 23, 2017.

On August 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the C convenience store located in Yangsan City B around 01:52, the victim D, an employee of the convenience store, did not immediately teach the toilet; (b) at the entrance of the above convenience store, the Defendant was unable to have the victim d, who was an employee of the convenience store, avoided a disturbance for about one hour, including: (c) he was flatd in the entrance of the toilet; (d) he was flatd in the victim, (e) he was flatd, (e) he was flatd; (e) he was flatd in the entrance of the above convenience store; (e) he was flatd in the body of the victim; and (e) was flatd with the victim, who

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the convenience store business of the victim by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each photograph;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiries about criminal history and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of screening prisoners;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Code for Aggravation of Aggravation of Aggravation of Aggravation of Aggravation of Cumulative Offense / Sentencing of the crime during the period of the crime, the time and interval between the release of the crime, the repetition of the same crime, the risk of repeating the crime, the victim’s wish to punish the victim, etc. In addition, considering various circumstances such as the background of the crime committed in the records and pleadings, reflective attitude, the degree of damage, etc., the punishment is determined as ordered by the order within the scope of the scope of the scope of the scope of the scope of the interference mitigation of the sentencing guidelines (where the degree of power and the above degree of damage is minor) (the judgment on the defendant’s assertion). However, the defendant asserted that he