However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 23:20 on July 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim C (the 32-year-old)’s “D” restaurant operated by the Daegu Seo-gu (the 32-year-old) “D” restaurant with the large sound that the female workers who opened the next table “Chewing,” and (b) took a bath again to the customers who repair the Defendant; (c) received the victim’s check; (d) received the victim’s check; and (d) made the victim’s check, “I will live several lives”; and (e) continued to take the place for the police officer called upon receiving the report, and made the customer who found the place out of the restaurant and prevented the victim from engaging in restaurant business.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (Attachment to the closure ofCCTV);

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

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the confession of a crime by the defendant, the depth of the crime, the damage level of the crime in this case is relatively minor);

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act to provide community service or attend lectures;