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

On May 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 10:08, the Victim C (53) located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (53) around 10:08 caused the Defendant to go to the said restaurant with the network value, which is a dangerous object in the warehouse of the said restaurant, and caused the Defendant to go to the customers.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous things and damaged the victim's property, and at the same time interfered with the victim's restaurant business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the scene of damage;

1. Article 369 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of causing damage to special property) and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interfering with business);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service order;

1. The sentencing criteria do not present a separate processing method for the commercial concurrent crimes, but it is necessary to refer the sentencing criteria to the commercial concurrent crimes as well. Therefore, the sentencing criteria for the special property damage crimes with heavy quality are examined in reference to the sentencing criteria.

2. The sentencing guidelines for the crime of destroying special property [tangibles] destruction: There is no person who habitually, repeated crimes, special damage, etc. (one type] (the area of recommendation and the scope of recommendation] basic area, eight months to one year and six months; and

3. The fact that the Defendant, having previously been sentenced to criminal punishment several times for violent crimes, once again leads to the instant crime, and that the Defendant’s destruction or damage of the cafeteria, which is a dangerous object, is considerably dangerous act, and that it seems that the property and business damage would not be considerable.

On the other hand, the defendant made a confession of his mistake, in 198.