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

On July 6, 2019, at around 17:30, the Defendant visited a simple restaurant operated by the victim D (Inn, 43 years of age) on the first floor of the “C” building “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”) to customers to eating food, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about one hour, such as taking a simplified table, chair, and beer on the floor without any reason, and taking a heavy bath.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (including the portion attached thereto, such as photographs);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Other circumstances, including the fact that the defendant's violent tendency appears in the records and arguments of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, the fact that the defendant has been subject to the same punishment including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, the fact that the defendant has reached an agreement with the victim, the defendant has been sexually committed, but the defendant is not likely to recommit a crime, etc., and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are determined as ordered by taking full account of various circumstances,