On July 13, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with labor due to interference with business by the Busan High Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the port prison on March 7, 2017.

On July 21, 2018, the Defendant, at around 12:10, obstructed the victim’s mobile phone sales business by force of approximately 35 minutes by avoiding the disturbance, such as “I,” going to the direction of his mobile phone on the ground that the cell phone is not operated under the influence of alcohol, and the victim’s smoking.” The Defendant, at around 12:10 on July 21, 2018, her cell phone sales business was obstructed by the victim’s cell phone sales business through the force of force of approximately 35 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A H statement;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as inquiry about criminal history, investigation report (Attachment of repeated crime records, etc.), and text of judgment;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes is that the defendant will not be repented in depth after committing the crime and will not repeat the crime;

In addition, even though it was agreed with the victim only smoothly, the defendant did not have been punished for the same crime even though there were many persons who had been punished for the same crime, and at the time, the defendant was under the same repeated crime period, and the defendant was under the same repeated crime period, and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the record, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex, sex, family relationship, living environment, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., set the same sentence as the order.