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

1. Around 00:25 on January 24, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim C’s business: (a) sought in the D restaurant operated by the victim C in the instant restaurant; (b) however, on the ground that the business was completed, the Defendant expressed the victim C’s desire to “I Chewing, here, I would be able to unlocked by getting the funeral,” and interfered with the victim’s business by force, such as forcing the customer, who was a meal in the instant restaurant, to sprinke, such as sprinking the sprinking of pine trees in front of the restaurant, and throwing the customer, and sprinking it into the said restaurant.

2. Around 00:40 of the above temporary date and time at around 112, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by referring to a large bit of “I am, Chewing typule, and f (52 years of age) who was dispatched to the said scene, to the place where the cafeterias, employees, etc. were located, on the ground that the Defendant prevented the Defendant from suffering disturbance.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Articles 314 (1) and 311 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) reflects the

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;