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

On October 15, 2016, from around 20:00 to 20:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) at the E cafeteria operated by the victim D (Woo, age 55) located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant: (b) caused the victim to die and die, and (c) died in the Cheongri prison.

It is so big that it was difficult to avoid a disturbance, such as cutting off a pursuant to the sash, sacrack, and sacracking the victim as the victim sacrifies.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. In light of the relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the selection of punishment, reasons [the scope of recommended punishment] for sentencing of imprisonment [the scope of business] interference with the mitigation area (one-month to eight months] [the person subject to special mitigation] [the defendant] who is not subject to punishment (the decision of sentence] despite the fact that the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, the defendant has reached an agreement to repeat the crime of this case at a disadvantage or smoothly with the victim, such as the fact that he/she has a symptoms of alcohol dementia, and currently has a symptoms of alcohol disorder, and is receiving medical treatment for the identification of alcohol, and all other sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive or circumstance of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered.