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

1. Special violence;

A. At around 03:20 on March 1, 2018, the Defendant sought a restaurant of “D” operated by Da (hereinafter “D”) in Yansan-si B, Jeonju-si, and tried to see the victim E (hereinafter “D”), who was in the main room, while taking a bath to see whether she she would be able to her by drinking, and she would be her witness, and she would have her drinking, and she opened a door and her door closed, and assaulted the victim (26 m in total length) by opening the door and her door, which is a dangerous object in the main room.

B. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, at the time, and at the place mentioned in the above paragraph (a) above, expressed that the victim C (the age of 48) was obscising to E, and expressed that the victim she was obscising, “I scising, frighting, frighting, and drawing a witness, and she was scising the victim’s breath, she was skeing the victim’s breath, and she was frighting to the victim, which is an object that is likely to harm the victim entering the restaurant, after going outside the restaurant.

2. The Defendant interfered with the business of the victim C and E at the time, time, place, as described in the above 1-A, and at the same time, and at the same place, the Defendant abused the victim C and E as mentioned above, and took a bath to the customers who resisting the above, “hums are known to them, brued, or drinking,” and interfered with the victim C’s restaurant business by avoiding disturbance for about 30 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and C;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that CCTV video image No. 5 (Evidence List No. 5) and the defendant did not have any fact that the defendant tried to see the victim E or had any injury to the victim E. However, as revealed by the evidence in the above decision, the victim E has consistently stated the circumstances and attitudes of assault in investigation agencies and this court, and C at the time of this case restaurant is also facing the victim E.