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. Around June 2, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim C, which was operated by the victim C in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon on June 2, 2015, sent “E” to other customers without any particular reason, such as breading alcohol at a singing shop. “The Defendant flading a disturbance, flading a voice, hinginging, etc.” and let customers leave the place.

The Defendant, including that, from around that time to January 17, 2016, obstructed the victim’s singing shop business by force over 10 times in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

2. On January 16, 2016, around 22:30, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Victim F, at the point of “H” operated by the Victim F in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and without any particular reason, “h” for other customers.

In order to avoid disturbances, such as gringing a few times of the Marine Corps and taking a bath for the Marine Corps, the victim interfered with the victim's main business affairs by force by leaving customers in his or her place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement with respect to C, I, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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 stay of execution (including the fact that the criminal defendant reflects his/her depth on the crime through the period of detention, and that the defendant agreed with the victims smoothly);

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Protection, Observation, etc. Act, and Article 62-2 of the said Act;