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 January 18, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 500,000 won by obstructing the business of the Ulsan District Court and was punished three times for the same crime.

On June 3, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at a bank where the victim D in Geum-gu, Busan, working as the petitioner police station, the Defendant: (b) on June 3, 2016, on the ground that the notice stating “I am bad time, 12:0 p.m., 2:0 p.m.” is not in mind, and (c) on the ground that “I am bad time, this time is bad.”

“Along with the demand of the victim to leave the bank on the ground that the victim’s failure was frighten and interfered with the customer’s use of the bank, the victim’s failure was not complied with, and the victim’s failure to take a bath and take a large sound, and returned to the bank, thereby hindering the victim’s duty to maintain safety and order in the bank.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made with D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (the list of 112 Reporting Cases);

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

1. Where the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution [the scope of recommended punishment] impedes the execution of imprisonment, taking into account the following: (a) the mitigation area (one month to eight months); (b) the degree of power or deceptive scheme, or the degree of interference with business, is minor; (c) the sentence is chosen in light of the criminal records, etc. of the defendant; (d) there is no power exceeding the fine; (e) there is no fault exceeding the fine; (e) the degree of interference with business is not serious; and (e) the execution of imprisonment is suspended.