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

2016 Highest 2138

1. On March 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 16:50 on March 26, 2016, the Defendant: (b) around 16:50, the customer, who had been informed of his/her failure at his/her place of work before being notified of his/her failure; and (c) the customer, who had been informed of his/her failure at the place of his/her place of work, is required to be unable to have

In this context, Magi.

The “Sari, Sari, Sari,” and the victim of this paragraph expressed the desire to “Sari, Sari, Sari,” and obstructed the operation of the victim’s excessive operation by force between about 15 minutes by avoiding the disturbance.

2. On March 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) destroyed a 2 box accompanied by a 10,000 son, who was in a sales stand, by finding out that the victim filed a 112 report to have his/her 112 notice, had a fluored objection to the arrest of the flagrant offender; and (b) had left the 2 box, who was in a sales stand, in the aggregate of the market price of the victim’s possession.

On April 23, 2016, Defendant 2763, at around 13:00 on April 23, 2016, obstructed the victim’s business by force of approximately 50 minutes and interfere with the victim’s business operation by making it difficult for customers to enter by making a disturbance, such as putting the victim D (n, 45 years of age) in a large sound, without any reason before E-day operated by the victim D (n, e.g., the 45 years of age).

Summary of Evidence

2016 Highest 2138

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement of D;

1. Photographs of damaged articles 2016 high group 2763;

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying property and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (the following matters shall be considered in light of the reasons for sentencing):

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for observation of protection;

1. Basic crimes applicable to the sentencing criteria and concurrent crimes [the types of decisions] that interfere with the business of interfering with the business thereof, Type 1 [the persons who are in special sentencing factors] mitigated elements: the punishment is not suspended (damage.).