However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Since around 10 years ago, the Defendant continued to find the victim law firm's disturbance on the ground that he had received legal counseling about civil litigation on the real estate related to the Defendant at the victim law firm Ros, and continued to find the above real estate on the ground that he had found it, around 12:30 on February 26, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the victim's work by force by avoiding the disturbance of the above law firm's 14th floor office located in Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 159-9, and avoiding the disturbance on the part of other customers. The Defendant avoided the above law firm C's demand that it stop and delivery, and caused the disturbance of the above law firm C's work by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant was sentenced two times to the same victim in response to the eviction, and one time as a obstruction of business; and (b) the record of having been sentenced to nine times a fine due to the denial of eviction, obstruction of business, violence, and obstruction of performance of official duties; and (c) the Defendant continuously found the victim on the grounds of an attorney-at-law interview. It is so decided as per Disposition