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

1. On December 21, 2016, at around 23:53, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by preventing entry of customers who had entered the restaurant by avoiding disturbance, such as going back to the restaurant by letting them return back to the restaurant remaining on the floor of the mixed after they have returned home. The Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. The Defendant, in refusal of the withdrawal, received a report from the police officer called “not to break out” at the same place on the day and around the day specified in paragraph 1, and was used to return home from the police officer called out; and

d) why they have food massages;

B. Whether it does not belong to B/L

"Pather for about 30 minutes while ging the time, it did not comply with the request for eviction without good cause."

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements, related photographs, investigation reports (verification as to whether a victim of a telephone is suspected of being the other party to the telephone), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on-site conditions);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Articles 314(1) and 319(2) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) of the choice of punishment, and imprisonment, respectively;

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

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

1. Although the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and observation recognizes each of the instant offenses, the defendant has already been punished twice in 2014 and 2016 by avoiding disturbance in the restaurant, but has again committed a crime of obstructing the instant business again, there is a high possibility of criticism.

In addition, even though the police officer dispatched after receiving a report on interference with business, he/she did not respond to the solicitation of returning home to the defendant, and the police officer and the victim will take the bath and continue the damage.