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

1. Interference with business;

A. On July 21, 2016, the Defendant, from around 22:20 to 22:40 on July 21, 2016, 201, expressed that “E” in the “E” week operated by the victim D located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, would have the customers sound at the same place, and “humb loy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy fy f

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

B. On July 25, 2016, the Defendant, from around 16:30 to 16:40 on July 25, 2016, 2016, expressed a bath to the victim “H” restaurant operated by the victim G in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the ground that the victim does not bring the disturbance in the same place before the restaurant operated by the victim “H” restaurant, which had already been in the same place, and provided the victim “h kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kk for the employee “h kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kk for the said restaurant, and prevented the customers from entering the said restaurant.

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

2. The Defendant who destroyed and damaged property shall be subject to paragraph 1(b).

At the same time and place as described in the port, the entrance of the above restaurant was carried in hand, and the fixed equipment of the above entrance, which is owned by the victim G, was accompanied by approximately KRW 50,000,00,00.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and G;

1. Second-time protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Each statement of D and G;

1. On-site CCTVs for investigation reports;