1. At around 01:10 on February 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) expressed that “C” main points located in Daegu Suwon-gu B had been arrested by the Defendant due to the victim D (hereinafter “C”)’s report of the crime of interference with business, etc., on the ground that he was arrested by the Defendant due to the crime of interference with business, etc., the Defendant sent a fine to the Defendant, who would have caused the death, and would not be able to death; and (b) threatened the victim with the threat of drinking.

2. The Defendant interfered with the business of the victim, at the time and place described in Paragraph 1, expressed the victim D’s desire as above, and obstructed the victim’s business operation by having the customers who had been outside the 20 minutes of the disturbance by setting up the main entrance door of “C”, and letting them out the outside.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent offenders, there are many criminal records on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with heavy punishment prescribed by the crime of interference with business) due to the same or different types of crimes. Among them, the criminal records on one occasion and two occasions of suspended execution due to violent crimes have been committed. In particular, the defendant, at the main point of “C” operated by the victim D on February 2, 2013, she again caused the instant crime by avoiding disturbance and finding the victim within two weeks (the crime as of February 2, 2013 at the Daegu District Court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million with respect to the crime as of March 19, 2013). Accordingly, even if the victim suffered a significant mental suffering to the victim, he/she did not recover the victim and did not make efforts to recover the victim from the court.