1. On October 2, 2012, at around 00:05 to 00:45, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victims by force for about 40 minutes, such as, under the influence of alcohol at the D convenience stores located in Masung, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victims’ convenience stores by force for about 40 minutes.

2. Around 00:45 on October 2, 2012, the Defendant insultd the victim openly insulting the Defendant at the place in which the said E and F are located, for three times, “I wish to see who would go to the military, she will do so, she will do so, she will do so, she will do so, she will do so only she will do so, she will do so.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of statutes on police statements made to H and E;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with labor for the crime;

1. From among concurrent offenders, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act has the record of having been sentenced several times to the crime of interference with business, etc. by the same criminal offender, and in particular, in light of the fact that the defendant committed during the period of suspension of the business due to the crime of interference

However, in determining the punishment, the punishment was determined as ordered in consideration of the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the family environment of the defendant, and the circumstances after the crime.