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

On January 30, 2014, from around 20:00 to 20:30 of the same day, the Defendant expressed, without any justifiable reason, the victim’s “D” main point of the victim’s operation in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, that he provided meals to customers with a large volume of voice, namely, whether he knows out or not,” and caused the victim who provided the said meals to leave the said customers at the place of the said customer’s seat.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's bar business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the details of telephone conversations between persons with a shooting range);

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

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part dismissing the prosecution under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (i.e., the Defendant’s mistake is pened in depth, and the victim does not want punishment against the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim), the Defendant, from January 30, 2014 to 20:30 the main point of “D’s operation of the victim C” in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, without any justifiable reason, expressed a large voice to the following customers who provide meals at the same place, i.e., “s., s.e., s., s.e., s., s.e., whether the Defendant would become s.e., s., f., s.b.) of the Criminal Act. The Defendant publicly insulting the victim by openly insulting the victim at the place where the victim was the victim.”

However, this is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Code, which can be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint in accordance with Article 312(1) of the Criminal Code.

According to the written agreement prepared by the victim C which was bound in the trial records, the above victim revoked the complaint against the defendant on April 16, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.