2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

1. On October 31, 2013, from around 22:40 to 22:58 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with business: (a) requested the victim C and his/her father E to change tobacco within the card limit from the “D convenience store” where the victim C was an employee; (b) the card limit was confirmed by the bank; and (c) the victim E was rejected; (d) he/she expressed the victim E “scam” in the carter; and (e) expressed sound, the police officers who continued to be dispatched after receiving a report from the victims, and led the victim to his/her failure, such as taking the drinking water bottle toward the garbage flow located within the above convenience store.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the convenience store business of victims by force.

2. On October 31, 2013, around 22:58, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the waste cannick at the convenience store as described in paragraph (1), where the market price of the victim C management of drinking water was unknown, as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Entry of each police statement in C and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes in the report of investigation (in the sixth page of investigation record);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. A total of five criminal records of violence, including crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act, and Article 62-2 of the Act on Probation, etc., committed another crime of this case again by the defendant who had been sentenced one time of suspension of execution, and the defendant committed another crime of this case within the convenience store during the first night, and it is disadvantageous that the police officer continued to escape from disturbance even after the dispatch of the police officer.

However, the defendant.