However, the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 20, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on August 28, 2017 by Seoul Southern District Court for property damage, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2017.

On July 25, 2017, at around 09:15, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force of about 10 minutes, such as: (a) the Defendant was requested by the victim D to return home, not to have any verbal dispute with other customers; (b) the Defendant was able to ask the victim D to return home; (c) the Defendant was able to do so on the restaurant floor; and (d) the Defendant was unable to enter the restaurant business by a 10-minute force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Photographs;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment; the application of inquiry statements and written judgments (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 3666, etc.) and statutes;

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

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e., the fact that the defendant suffers from early illness, etc. and there is no history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine before the crime of this case;