The Defendant received a summary order on five occasions from November 22, 2015 to January 10, 2016 at the main point of “F” located under the ground of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, with the victim D (54 years old) and “F” located under the victim E (49 years old) over four occasions as a crime interfering with business.

On March 11, 2016, the Defendant found the above main point and obstructed the business of threatening the victim D and obstructing the business thereof, and on May 12, 2016, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for one year for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the crime of interference with business affairs, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 20,

1. On May 22, 2016, the Defendant discovered the victim E who is frightly and frighted in the instant restaurant “I” located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G at around 22:00 on May 22, 2016, and the Victim E who found the victim E who frighted in the instant restaurant “I” and was subject to suspended execution of imprisonment with prison labor.

“Fastly sound”.

Despite the restraint of the victims E, the Defendant flicked in the drinking flick of the victim E, and "hacking to the flick, flicking to the flick, the flick to the flick end.

The term “amidst two-hour threat was made to the victim.”

On May 23, 2016, around 00:20 on May 23, 2016, the Defendant continued to take back original eggs from the victim E who escaped from the Defendant before the main point of “F” operated by the victim E on the first underground floor of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

E. “O.S.O.S.E. O.S.E. O.S.E. O.S.O.E. O.S.E. O.S.

H. L. H. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.C.

The phrase “victim E” threatened the victim E.

As such, the Defendant, in relation to the investigation of his criminal case, threatened the victim E with the purpose of retaliation for providing the investigation proviso and making statements.

2. Obstruction of business;

A. On May 22, 2016, at around 00:30 on May 22, 2016, the Defendant’s request for returning home, which differs from from the J after the drinking from the main point of view.