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. Obstruction of business;

A. The Defendant, from September 24, 2016 to around 21:20 on September 24, 2016, 2016, “E operated by the victim D with the wife population C and the victim D with the first floor” in the “E” food and drinking mixedly in the 5 table table, and the victim only changed by avoiding disturbance.

In other words, the victim caused the disturbance to interfere with the legitimate restaurant operation of the victim by force, such as allowing the influences in the place where the victim might feel uneasiness, by "Is this weather year, Isia of the same year, Isia", and a large sound, and allowing the influences who were in the place where the victim might feel uneasy, to leave the restaurant.

B. The Defendant, from around 18:10 on September 25, 2016 to around 18:25, used the victim’s toilet in the restaurant within the aforementioned “E” food.

In addition, while the victim refused to do so, the victim obstructed the legitimate restaurant operation of the victim by force by avoiding the disturbance due to the booming of the victim, going beyond his will, etc.

(c)

During the period from September 26, 2016 to around 19:00 on September 26, 2016 to around 19:30, the Defendant, within the above “E” food store, booms the unexpected customers who had been in the place and booms the victim.

With a big defect, it interfered with the legitimate restaurant operation of the victim by force, such as bringing the victim's bath, avoiding disturbance, leaving the customer who intends to enter the drinking house without entering the drinking house.

2. The Defendant damaged property at the same time and place as paragraph 1-A (a) and at the same time and place as paragraph 1-A (a) and damaged property owned by the victim by putting the victim’s trees, which were installed at the entrance of the above restaurant, into two hand, by removing the floor, thereby causing approximately KRW 3.50,000 of the repair cost to be reduced.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each written statement in D. D.