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

On March 19, 2019, from around 20:45 to 21:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) from the restaurant operated by the victim C in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant saw the time for other customers from the restaurant operated by the victim C to the other customers; (b) made it difficult to avoid any disturbance, such as spiting, spiting, etc., of the cups on the other customers’ table.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the restaurant operated by the victim by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of CCTV images at cafeterias);

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines [the determination of types of punishment] the scope of business interference [the category 1] the scope of business interference [the person who is a special person] the elements of mitigation: [the scope of recommendation and recommendation] the scope of mitigation area] the scope of mitigation area, imprisonment with prison labor for one month to eight months [the general person] - The factors of mitigation: The strong reflectivity [the reasons for suspension of execution] - The major reasons for suspension of execution - The person who is not subject to punishment - The major reasons for suspension of execution: the same criminal record and the person who is subject to general pride: the strong reflectivity.

3. Determination of sentence: Six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence;