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

The Defendant, at around 23:40 on December 23, 2016, called “singing practice place” operated by the Victim C in Singing practice place operated by the Victim C, but, on the ground that the victimized person does not have the right to know, whether the victimized person would not be “singinginging, smoking, going for the same year as that during which he would not have the right to know, and why he would not have the right to know;

? wherever there is a fluora fluora,

Chewing, etc., and as a result, she could have avoided a disturbance for about 30 minutes, such as she was frightening the victim by using a brush, etc.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. One month to five years from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for a prison labor in law; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall interfere with the affairs of the recommendation [the scope of the punishment], the area of mitigation (one month to eight months) [the person subject to special mitigation], the area of punishment not subject to punishment (including the advanced efforts to recover damage);

3. The Defendant committed the instant crime on the grounds that the Defendant was not aware of such circumstances, and the Defendant also knew of such circumstances, and the Defendant committed the instant crime on the grounds that the Defendant did not want to play a singing practice place; the Defendant reported that the Defendant was running a singing practice place; and the Defendant had been punished several times due to violent crimes, considering the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant; on the other hand, the Defendant agreed with the victim; the Defendant did not have any history of punishment more than a suspended sentence; and the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime; and the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, and crime are considered as favorable to the Defendant.