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

1. On June 19, 2013, at around 14:10, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) caused the victim D, a business owner of the instant restaurant “C” located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si; (b) caused the Defendant to interfere with the victim’s restaurant business by force by forcing the visitors who visited the said restaurant to leave the restaurant, by having the victim D, a business owner of the instant restaurant, not sell alcoholic beverages any more because the Defendant drinks a usual drinking and drinking water; and (c) in turn, “the dead or either of the two” and “the dead or either of the two,” and hump sing the disturbance by taking a large voice; and (d) caused them to interfere with the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. The Defendant damaged property by putting in the floor one of the victim D, the market value of which is equivalent to 110,000 won of petroleum column, one of the 130,000 won of the market price, one of the 130,000 won of the market price, and one of the 60,000 won of the market price, which is owned by the Defendant on the same ground as the date and place described in paragraph (1).

3. 모욕 피고인은 2013. 6. 19. 17:05경 제1항 기재 장소에서 신고를 받고 출동한 충남당진경찰서 소속 경장인 피해자 E에게 "야 씨발 새끼야, 개새끼 좆 같은 놈아, 병신새끼 꼴깝을 하네, 나이 어린 게 사진 찍고 촬영 하네, 이 새끼 죽여 버린다"라고 주점 업주 D 등이 보는 자리에서 큰소리로 욕설하여 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. E statements;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of not less than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the execution of a sentence shall be suspended on the condition that it will not be reoffending, in consideration of the fact that the victim of the destruction and damage has been smoothly agreed and against it);