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

On July 24, 2017, from around 15:00 to 18:00 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force, such as: (a) the victim D’s vehicle located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the victim’s vehicle in the course of driving the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle in the course of driving the vehicle; (b) the Defendant kiddddd the Defendant with a cry for the damaged vehicle during the course of driving the vehicle, and the victim’s vehicle in the course of driving the vehicle; (c) the Defendant was faced with a alcohol disease; and (d) the Defendant drawed the victim’s hh, “h, h,” and obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the observation of protection and observation [the scope of the recommended punishment] There is no person [the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] [the person subject to six months to one year and six months] of the basic area (the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] of the defendant in this case] The defendant's liability for the crime is not easy in light of the method and attitude of the crime as it was found that the defendant found several times in the restaurant operated by the victim, scambling the victim, scambling the victim, interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force by avoiding the disturbance, and it was not good in light of the method and mode of the crime. The defendant has the history of punishment several times, the defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the victim and failed to recover damage, and the degree of interference with the work is relatively heavy.

However, considering the fact that the defendant reflects the mistake of the defendant, the fact that the defendant does not have any criminal record exceeding the fine, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime.