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

On March 6, 2019, at around 18:30, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant operation duties by force of about 30 minutes, such as “C” restaurant located in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, where the Defendant 18:30, “C,” where the Defendant 2, “C,” and “C,” where the Defendant 30 minutes of the Plaintiff’s restaurant operation duties, including “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” “hin,” and “hin, inevitably changed,” and “hin,” and “hin,” where the customers play meals.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. 112 Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the 112 Report Processing 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. In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence specified in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered, including the fact that the Defendant appears to have violent inclinations of the Defendant in the criminal records of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, and that the Defendant is against the Defendant, but it is not likely to have committed a second offense