However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 6, 2019, at around 00:30 on January 6, 2019, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about 50 minutes due to the following: (a) the Defendant, at the main point of “D” in the operation of the Victim C, located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu, for the reason that the victim would not drink the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant, “I will do so without drinking.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the statement of victim C prepared;

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act to order probation and attending lectures;

1. Type 1 (Interference with Business) and basic area (six months to one year and six months) (special person): No one person shall be involved in the scope of business of the recommended sentencing criteria;

2. The nature of the crime is bad in view of the degree of the Defendant’s use of violence by the Defendant, and the degree of fear of suffering by the victim.

Moreover, the Defendant committed the crime of interference with business, destruction of property, and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and committed the crime of this case again despite the past record of criminal punishment several times.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against it, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine so far.

In addition, the sentencing conditions shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.