around 04:45 on September 19, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s convenience store business by force by leaving the victim’s convenience store by avoiding disturbance for about 15 minutes on the ground that the victim D (30 taxes, women) purchased by himself/herself on the ground that he/she was frightened to himself/herself as an employee, within the convenience store “C” located in Hanam-si, and that he/she was frightened to himself/herself as an employee.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, grounds for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment, and grounds for sentencing of sentence of the crime;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] the scope of business interference [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the case where the degree of interference with the business of the mitigated area (one month to eight months) [the person who has been specially mitigated] [the case where the suspension of execution is minor] - The major reasons for the suspension of execution] - The negative criminal records of the same kind (the suspension of execution of execution of not more than five years, the suspension of execution of not less than three times, or the fine not less than three times): The case where the person has been convicted of not less

2. The fact that the defendant who was sentenced to the sentence of this case led to the confession of the crime of this case, and the damage caused by the crime of this case is not heavy can be seen as favorable circumstances.

However, there are many criminal records of violence against the defendant, the defendant did not receive an application from the victim, and did not make efforts to recover damage, and in light of the investigation process and the attitude of the trial process, etc., it cannot be seen that the defendant's mistake is repented in the truth. It seems that the defendant is likely to easily exercise violence, and the risk of recidivism is considerably high, and the motive of the crime of this case is also difficult to understand, even if the defendant is selected, it is difficult to expect any special preventive effect, and the correction of the defendant is difficult.