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 November 24, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in the Seoul Central District Court on April, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 2, 2016.

피고인은 2016. 10. 23. 04:00 경 서울 관악구 B에 있는 'C' 주점에서 지배인인 피해자 D이 술에 취한 피고인에게 귀가할 것을 요청하자, 바닥에 침을 뱉고 “ 내가 건달, 양아치인데, 니가 얼마나 빽이 좋냐,

The funeral service will not be performed.

“At least 20 minutes of disturbance, such as taking a bath in the form of a series of stories and keeping things in the main points, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business for about 20 minutes by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiries about criminal history, inquiry about summary of case information, and application of a text of judgment 1 of the Act and subordinate statutes;

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. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

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

1. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

Therefore, according to the records, the fact that the defendant was under influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case is acknowledged, but due to that, there was no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

As such, the above assertion is rejected.

The circumstances unfavorable to the reason for sentencing: The circumstances that the defendant who has been already punished several times due to the same kind of crime committed another crime are more favorable to the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case: The defendant's mistake is seriously against the defendant; the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant; and the defendant could have been tried together with the obstruction of business in the judgment that became final and conclusive, and the above circumstances, the age, behavior, career, and experience of the defendant.