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

On June 19, 2014, from around 21:40 to 22:20 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) from the perspective of “E” in the part of “E” in the part of the victim D (hereinafter “E”) located in Gyeonggi-si (hereinafter “E”); (b) caused the victim to avoid disturbance, such as: (c) having the mother and child, who was used for the humbling theory, “this two years, weather, collapse, and this bad year,” and (d) caused the victim to go out of the said part; and (e) prevented the Defendant from entering the said part.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. It is decided as above on the ground that Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended execution (it is recognized that business has been interfered with several times with the same victim, but it is against the starting point of the crime, the victim is agreed to do so, there is no record of the suspended execution or more punishment, the contents of the crime, the circumstances of the crime, etc.) of the Criminal Act