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

On August 29, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution due to interference with business in the branch court of the Jeonju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 6, 2017.

피고인은 2017. 7. 8. 22:00 경 피해자 B(33 세) 이 운영하는 수원시 팔달구 C에 있는 D 주점에서, 주문하지 않은 채 냉장고에 있던 소주를 마음대로 가져간 후 다른 손님이 먹다가 남기고 간 음식이 있는 테이블에 앉아 소주를 마시고 다른 손님과 종업원들에게 " 씨 발, 개새끼야, 짱 골라 "라고 욕설을 하고 소리를 지르는 등 약 30분 동안 행패를 부렸다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement prepared B;

1. Previous records: Investigation report (Attachment of criminal records of the same kind), report on the results of confirmation of previous records of the disposition, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes which inquire into criminal records;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is a single concurrent crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the sentencing criteria do not apply.

Considering the fact that there was a history of punishment for the same criminal record, the fact that the defendant recognized the mistake and reflects the defendant, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim smoothly, and the crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes between the crime for which the judgment became final and the crime of this case should be considered at the same time in the relationship of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.