except that this shall not apply.

On November 23, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced by the Gwangju District Court to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. on August 23, 2017 and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 1 of the same year.

1. The Defendant who interfered with business with B from January 31, 2019 to the same year with his/her spouse.

9. Until February 2, 200, in front of the victim D’s stores located in Yong-Gun, the store was installed without permission, and the store was stored near the entrance entrance into the victim’s store, and the fishery products sales business was operated, thereby preventing new lessees from entering the store owned by the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with B to interfere with the leased of the victim's store by force.

2. Around 11:00 on March 26, 2016, the Defendant threatened the victim by saying, “The Defendant was in receipt of the request from the victim D to make a store unsatisfy, I would have made a clear accusation. I would have been able to do so. I would have taken part in this challenge. I would have filed a civil petition until the opening of an unauthorized building was removed. I would have known that it would continue to exist from the first day of the next week.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Recording records;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (the same kind of criminal records A);

1. Relevant Articles 314(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime, respectively;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: The degree of the defendant's power exercised in relation to the crime of interference with business in the judgment seems not to be significant, and the crime of intimidation in the judgment becomes final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act