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 May 17, 2018, the Defendant entered a restaurant operated by the victim D in Suwon-si, Suwon-si on May 17, 2018. On the part of the said victim, the Defendant: (a) opened the restaurant with the victim D on May 17, 2018; and (b) opened the restaurant with the said victim, the Defendant: (c) opened the restaurant with the large interest of “Segent Paris,” and (d) opened the restaurant with the customers outside the restaurant for about 30 minutes, including, but not limited to, making the customers seated without permission.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs on damage scenes;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reduction area (one month to eight months) in the mitigation area (special sentencing factors) of the mitigation area, in which the sentencing criteria are applied [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the affairs thereof are obstructed: the reduction area is not subject to punishment;

2. Consideration, such as the fact that there has been a history of punishment for the same criminal record as the sentence has been imposed several times, the fact that the defendant recognized his fault and reflects his fault, and that he agreed with the victim.