On February 25, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for a period of eight months due to interference with the execution of official duties in the Gwangju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 21, 2016, and is currently under suspended sentence.

1. On December 11, 2017, the Defendant: (a) visited the “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Gwangju-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju-gu; (b) visited the customer as a member of the restaurant; and (c) did not engage in any frighting or dispute; and (d) caused the disturbance to the victim’s restaurant business by force of approximately 20 minutes, such as having the victim’s frighting to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright

2. The Defendant damaged property at the same date, time, and place as indicated in paragraph 1, and at the same time and place as indicated in the foregoing paragraph, followed the table of the above restaurant, and slick lids, such as the glass, chairs, the table lids, and the lids of the above restaurant, damaged property equivalent to KRW 1,230,000 in total market value, which is owned by the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A written statement;

1. Written estimate;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation, and application of the statutes governing the judgment;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. Scope of sentencing recommended according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) A crime No. 1 in its holding [the type of determination] interference with business affairs [the determination of the recommended area] mitigation area (the scope of recommended punishment not exceeding eight months];

(b) Type 1 (Determination of Place of Recommendation), mitigated area (Determination of Place of Recommendation), and not more than 6 months (Scope of Recommendation) of the Decision No. 2 (Determination of Type) (Determination of Property Damage, etc.) (Determination of Place of Recommendation);

(c) Aggravation of multiple crimes: Not more than 11 months;

2. Determination of sentence: The arguments of this case are shown in the following circumstances: imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months, such as the age, sex, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.