However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On June 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 00:00, and around 305, in front of the Ecomter’s 305 guest rooms operated by the victim D (71 tax) located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu; (b) the Defendant was able to take a heavy bath for the Defendant on the ground that he did not open a door to the friendly job offering F and G, which are administered in the place; and (c) the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance over 2 hours, such as launchinging the guest room.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of D and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

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

1. The crime of interference with business has already been punished several times due to the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, even though there is a history of punishment due to the crime of interference with business. However, the fact that the defendant's mistake is contrary to the recognition of the defendant's mistake, there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than the fine, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered in the same manner as the order.