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

On November 9, 2019, from around 12:00 to 14:10 on the same day, the Defendant took alcohol in the “D” restaurant operated by the victim C, which is located in Seo-gu Daejeon, and took a bath to the customers located therein, and the Defendant dumpeded up the table table with the table table, the Defendant dumpeded the table table with a large amount of sound, and caused customers to go out of the restaurant.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to 112 reported case handling lists and investigation reports (112 reporter's telephone statement hearing);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and lecture attendance order;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria (the determination of types) [the category 1] interference with business: Where the degree of force, deceptive scheme or the degree of interference with business is insignificant (the scope of the recommended area and the range of the recommended punishment) and the area of mitigation (the range of the recommended area and the recommended punishment), one month to eight months by imprisonment.

3. Circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant: The Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol in a restaurant at a low level.

On April 2019, the Defendant interfered with the business of a restaurant and committed another same kind of crime on July 2019, even after receiving a summary order of a fine of 2 million won on July 2019.

The circumstances favorable to the defendant: The defendant was on a restaurant for two hours, and the police officer was on the part of the victim upon the victim's report, and when the police officer called the restaurant, and the police officer was on the part of the defendant, so long as the police officer called the restaurant, the degree of the defendant's power or the degree of business obstruction seems to have been insignificant.

The Defendant recognized the instant crime.