On February 19, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for interference with business in the Sungnam support of the Suwon Friwon, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Suwon Kwon detention center on October 13, 2016.

At around 23:00 on January 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim D’s “E” operated by Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu; (b) expressed the victim’s desire to take care of excessive amount of money paid as the agreed money for the instant crime case to the victim; and (c) expressed the victim’s desire to “one million won out of the agreed money, 500,000 won, and she changed this morale,” which interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force for about 30 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (Attachment to a summary order, etc.), and Acts and subordinate statutes on personal confinement;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] on the sentencing criteria, and the scope of the aggravated area (one year to three years and six months) (the person subject to special aggravated punishment] of the same type of repeated crime;

2. A favorable circumstance is that the defendant who made a decision of sentence of this case led to confession and reflects the crime of this case.

However, given that the Defendant had multiple criminal records of interference with business and violence, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she had committed a repeated crime according to the current criminal records of the judgment, and considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime at the time of finding the victim of the previous criminal records of the judgment, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime and the degree of interference with business, etc., it is inevitable to impose severe punishment on the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances under Article 51 of the Criminal Act and the scope of recommendations given in the sentencing guidelines, etc., the punishment shall be determined as per the order.