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

around 22:10 on December 21, 2019, the Defendant received a demand from the victim to “I would not sell alcohol” in the E operation of the victim C(the age of 43) in Busan B.

The Defendant expressed a hump “dyp?” and interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force for about 30 minutes by means of seating on the table of other customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 119 Reporting Cases Handling Table;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

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

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment [the determination of a type of punishment] interference with the affairs [the category 1] interference with the affairs (the special person]: Reduction elements of punishment (including efforts to recover damage): Reduction areas (including the recommended area and the scope of recommended punishment] reduction areas, imprisonment with labor for one month to eight months;

3. The Defendant, who was sentenced to sentence, committed the instant crime even though he was investigated by the police by interfering with and refusing to leave the business place operated by the victim of the instant case.

The victim expressed his intention not to punish the victim on the ground that the defendant should pay a fine two times (the above business interference, the escape refusal case) due to the victim's past relation and the report of the victim, but it appears that the defendant did not have any particular criminal liability on the ground that the defendant was living together with the victim, and that the victim did not have any specific criminal liability (the defendant expressed his intention that the punishment is to be imposed in this court's written opinion submitted in this court), and that there is a high possibility of recidivism.

Therefore, under the condition that the defendant is placed on probation against the victim's will.