However, the execution of imprisonment for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 14:00 on May 10, 2016, at E-cafeteria where the victim D (n, 31 years of age) working in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C; (b) the Defendant returned to the restaurant in the state of drinking; and (c) the Defendant “I do so.”

“Along with the desire to see,” customers who were in the place of the disturbance were able to get out of the place, and were fright for 30 minutes per hour and 30 minutes.

The Defendant, by force, interfered with the victim’s restaurant business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. Application of the Cinematographic Acts and subordinate statutes to the video CDs;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter “D”) of the Criminal Act dismissing the prosecution of the instant case, the part concerning intimidation, and the Defendant reported himself to the police in relation to interference with duties and interference with duties on May 10, 2016.

I think of it and think of it, and take action to see the victim, and "any year has been reported."

D. Doz.

It is intended to kill and throw away a stove.

“The victim was threatened by sound.”

The crime of intimidation falls under Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, and shall not be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim in accordance with paragraph (3) of the same Article.

Since the victim expressed his intention not to be punished against the defendant after filing the prosecution of this case, the prosecution of the assault of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.