However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On January 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim C (son, 46 years of age) to sell credit to the victim C (son, and 46 years of age) to the victim on the ground that the victim refused to sell credit to the victim, the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance for about one hour for approximately 1 hours, such as: (b) 12,80 won of the market price of the victim’s possession, which is the victim’s 12,800 won, on the ground of the victim’s refusal to sell credit to the floor.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the convenience store business of the victim and damaged the victim's property by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning facts constituting an offense (Consideration of many previous offenders in the same offense, etc.);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (including the fact that it is a contingent crime and the fact that it has no criminal record of the same kind exceeding the fine after 2006);