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

1. On September 6, 2019, the Defendant interfered with business from around 12:50 on September 6, 2019 to 13:05 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the business management of the victim’s store by force for about 15 minutes, such as entering a store under the influence of alcohol within “D” managed by the victim C (the age of 31) located in Gunposi B, and sitting into a mast for a total period of time installed therein without any justifiable reason as he/she sits into the store, and making the franch “fri, fluor,” and “fluor of bitch,” and preventing customers from entering the store.

2. On September 7, 2019, the Defendant: (a) from around 18:30 on September 7, 2019 to around 20:00 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s restaurant business by force for approximately one hour to 30 minutes, including, but not limited to, KRW 1:30 on September 7, 2019, the Defendant: (b) was seated on the stairs adjacent to the restaurant operated by the victim F (39 years of age) of the Gunposi; and (c) took a bath to the customers entering the restaurant; and (d) made a meal in the restaurant; and (d) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. Investigation reports (in relation to a suspect, attaching a list of reports filed in 112);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserts that he/she was in a state of mental disability and mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the developments and contents of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s attitude of testimony, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the

Therefore, the defendant and the defense counsel are accepted.