【Criminal Power” On November 8, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. at the Seoul East Eastern District Court on May 9, 2013, and the said court was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 2, 2013, and the said suspended sentence was terminated on April 3, 2014. On November 20, 2014, the said court was sentenced to five months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, and completed the execution of the said sentence on December 14, 2014.

【Criminal Facts” from July 6, 2015 to 05:30 on the same day, the Defendant d’E restaurant operated by the victim D in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, for the reason that he was taking a bridge to other customers who were eating, she flicks, and she flicks to enter the restaurant, and she flicks to the customer who entered the restaurant, and she flicks, and she flicks to the other customer, and she she flicks to the other customer, and she she flicks to the other customer, and she she flicks to the other customer, and she flicks the victim’s restaurant business by having other customers who were taking a meal in the said restaurant with a large sound “this flick,” and interfere with the victim’s restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. G statements;

1. Investigation report (to hear victim's D phone statements);

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (verification during the period of repeated crime), each judgment (Evidence Nos. 8 through 10) and Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the current status of personal identification and confinement;

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

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act, among repeated offenders, the background and content of the crime of this case, the degree of damage, the degree of damages not agreed, and the Defendant had the same criminal record in several times including the repeated offense department as indicated in the judgment, and in particular, the instant case.