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

1. From July 4, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim C (V) around 12:20 on July 4, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by: (a) having the victim take a bath to the victim operating the above restaurant “ging, Chewing,” without any special reason; (b) having the victim take a bath to the victim “ging, Chewing,” and preventing the customers who were seated on other tables from taking a disturbance for about 1 hour and 30 minutes; and (c) having the customer go to or entering the restaurant of the above restaurant of Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

2. On July 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 14:00 on July 14, 2015, the Defendant: (b) in a restaurant with the trade name “H in the operation of the Victim F in Ansan-gu G”; (c) demanded employees in the name of the above restaurant to “breging two parallels of massages”; (d) the said employees are equal to that of the instant restaurant; (c) subsequently, the Defendant rejected the said employees to the effect that “I will see, face,” and “I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, and see, I see that I will see customers.

Ultimately, the Defendant interfered with the victims' restaurant operation by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. A written statement of C and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on photographic data of the case

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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

1. Article 62 of the Criminal Act: