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

On June 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 00:00, the victim C’s “D” restaurant operated in Sinpo City B; (b) even though the Defendant requested alcohol, the Defendant, who is an employee of the above restaurant, refused it to the effect that “I see a large number of alcoholic beverages; hereinafter the same shall apply; hereinafter the end of the business; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) he was holding three of the restaurants located in the above place on the floor of the restaurant; and (d) took about 20 minutes of a disturbance, such as taking three of the restaurants on the floor of the restaurant; and (e) putting the employees and customers at a large level, and prevented the victims and employees of the above restaurant from responding to customers.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 314 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] Article 62-2 of the Order to Attend a lecture shall be determined as per the order, taking into consideration the following: (a) the mitigation area (one month to eight months) [Special Mitigation] of the mitigation area; (b) the previous conviction of a fine related to violence is more than 10 times; and (c) the previous conviction of a fine related to violence is more than 10 times; and (d) the person