except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On August 17, 2016, at around 23:00, the Defendant, at the “D” restaurant operated by the Victim C (A, 68 years of age) located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, followed the victim’s door to the door of the entrance (around 50 cm, 185 cm in length) by having the victim’s door to the door, who had the victim’s speech and dispute in a large manner with daily and large manner.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the free entrance of the city, which is the victim, and at the same time interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 (Punishment under Interference with Business Affairs. Selection of imprisonment)

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] Interference with Business : Reduction according to the reason for mitigation (a person with a special sentencing] from June to June (a year 1: (b) year: January to August (a decision of sentence] the degree of violence exercised in the course of the instant crime; (c) damage recovery (a decision of sentence); (d) the circumstances in which the Defendant recognized his mistake; and (e) other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records; and (e) circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment as ordered.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.