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

(e).

On January 23, 2013, between 05:20 on January 23, 2013 and 05:50 on the same day, the Defendant makes an unreasonable demand to showCC-TV, such as: (a) at the Saribabab in Sababab in Sababab in Sababa; (b) the said Sababa under the influence of alcohol does not run

For reasons that one does not receive his own demand, “Chewing, ice, and ices do not go to the gymnasium,” etc., and the crymnasium monitors equivalent to KRW 1,070,000 at the market price on which the crymnas were placed in the crymnas by hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with D’s above-mentioned businesses by force, and damaged the above-mentioned calculating machine monitors owned by the victim E, a representative of the above-mentioned company, by by force, by 30 minutes, such as shacking the customers who were divingd in the company, and preventing them from calculating the accounts against the customers who had entered the company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Articles 314 (1) and 313 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Although the defendant in the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act committed the instant crime, in spite of the fact that the criminal records of the commission of a fine due to violence, business obstruction, etc. were four times, including the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime, he/she shall be sentenced to suspended sentence by taking into account the following factors: (a) the fact that the defendant recognized the commission of the crime; (b) agreed with the victim; (c) the fact that he/she agreed with the victim; and (d) awareness about the safety of the conduct of the crime of this case

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The Defendant, on January 23, 2013, is spawn of C spawn located in Spawn P around 06:00.