On July 10, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with labor at the Seoul Central District Court for the crime of interference with business, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on November 3, 2010.

On July 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 21:00, at a “D” restaurant located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and (b) on the ground that the victim E, an employee of the Defendant, expressed “I am in a restaurant to avoid smoking tobacco,” and expressed the victim’s desire to “I am in a restaurant to am in a cafeteria,” and walked with the chair, and the victim am in a scam, and the victim am in a scam for about 40 minutes per hour, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc., inquiry reports and investigation reports (crimes during the repeated period) Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years;

2. The sentencing guidelines are not set. 3. The sentencing guidelines are not set: The reasons for six months of imprisonment: the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime and three years of imprisonment for the same crime and has not yet passed since he was released on November 3, 2010; the defendant again committed the same kind of crime; the crime of interference with business, violence, and insult was punished four times as a result of the crime of obstruction of performance of duties, the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc., the crime of injury, the crime of assault, and the crime of assault, etc. committed two times after 200, the punishment should be selected in consideration of the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment for the same crime, and the punishment should be selected as a person who is disqualified for suspension of execution under Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

However, it is a crime that has been committed contingent while in action.