1. On March 18, 2016, at around 21:00, the Defendant obstructed the victim C’s main shop business by force, such as having a man and female customers wing a wing with a large sound under the influence of alcohol, having a man and female customers take a wing wing, talking, or wing out a disturbance for about 1 hour and 50 minutes.

2. The Defendant, at around 22:50 on the same day as the above paragraph (1) above, changed the victim C (50) who is the president of the main branch of the above “D” to out of the Defendant.

As a result of the request, “Choe, C,” the hump theory was used to assault the victim C by putting the victim’s flap with hand, and assaulting the victim E (the 52 years old), who was an employee of the above main shop, to drink the victim E (the 52 years old).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of each assault) and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Criteria for sentencing reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

(a) Obstruction of business [Scope of recommended punishment] Obstruction of business operations, the basic area (from June to June) 1;

(b) Violence against the victim C [the scope of recommended punishment] and the basic area (two months to ten months) of the crime of assault;

C. The scope of the final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses in the basic area (two months to ten months): the Defendant, who was sentenced on June or February 10, 201, was punished for the same offense seven times, and the Defendant appealed on December 23, 2015 and appealed on December 23, 2015 and filed an appeal against the Defendant for two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same offense, while the Defendant committed the instant crime.