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

(e).

1. Obstruction of business;

A. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 12:10, at the “F restaurant” operated by the victim E (32 taxes) in Gwangju Mine-gu; (b) at the drunk stage, the Defendant expressed the desire for employees and customers under the influence of alcohol; (c) the victim’s chest part is pushed down by hand; (d) the victim’s chest part is pushed down by hand; and (e) the victim’s fright is walking with the victim’s face; and (e) the victim’s fright spits down on the victim’s face; and (e) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business operation by force of about 10 minutes.

B. On September 6, 2017, at around 16:00, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force of about 10 minutes, following the Defendant’s disturbance: (a) around 16:00, at the places described in paragraph (a); (b) the Defendant requested employees to drink alcohol; (c) the Defendant was fluored on the restaurant floor; (d) the Defendant was fluored on his hand; and (d) the Defendant was demanded to fluorize the victim with drinking alcohol only; and (e) the Defendant was fluored on the victim’s face; and (e) the Defendant fluored the victim’s restaurant business by force of about 10 minutes.

2. The Defendant damaged the victim’s property by placing two parts of the total market value equivalent to 80,000 won, owned by the victim E, located at the entrance of the above restaurant at the time, time, place, and place specified in paragraph 1-b. The Defendant damaged the victim’s property by placing two parts of the market value in the front of the above restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to CCTV photographs and fire extinguishing photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

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 is that the Defendant, even though having been sentenced twice to a fine for violent crimes, once again acknowledges and reflects all the unfavorable circumstances and criminal facts such as the fact that he/she committed the instant crime, and all favorable circumstances such as the fact that he/she agreed with the victim.