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.

1. On June 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) within the D convenience store located in Ansan-si Group C, a member of Ansan-si on June 14, 2015; (b) whether the Defendant, within the D convenience store, listens to the talk that the victim E, who is a part of the right-to-be, will be on credit, bring about a change in the value of the right-to-be marriage; and (c) thereby, refers to the payment of the money that the Defendant would be on the basis of the following:

It was difficult to avoid disturbance for about 15 minutes, such as the expression of "to die," the sound, the failure of customers who intend to calculate the value of goods, etc.

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

2. The Defendant, as described in paragraph 1, was frightened by the victim F, the convenience store, in order to calculate the value of the article, was frightened by the victim F, the convenience store, and was asked by the victim F, who was the customer, to see the value of the article. The Defendant was frightened in this year.

In the bruth of death, violence was committed by putting the right shoulder of the victim, such as breaking the victim's shoulder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each police statement protocol to E and F;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order [the scope of recommendation] The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the same Act [the scope of punishment]: Crimes of Type 1 (Interference with Duties) and Type 2 (Assaults from June to June) of the basic area (Assaults from June 1): The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple crimes in the basic area (two months to October) (the general assaults from February 1): The ordinary circumstances unfavorable to June 1 to November 11 (the decision of sentence] of this case: the cases are not less complicated in light of the motive, method, etc. of the crime in this case; there is no agreement with the victims; there are three favorable circumstances, including probation two times, which are favorable to the defendant: the defendant's wrong.