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

On June 13, 2014, between 18:30 on June 13, 2014 and 19:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) found the victim’s C operation D in Chungcheong City B, on June 12, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant, at night, she took a bath at the above restaurant and reported the disturbance to the police; and (b) determined the victim’s voice that “I will see whether I will die, I will see? I will see? I am? I am? I am, I am? I am? I am, I am, I am? I am, I am, I am, I am. I am am, “I am? I am? I am? I am? I am, I am? I am? I am. I am. I am. 30 minutes.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant operation by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of C’s written laws and regulations

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act is that the defendant has been subject to a disposition of suspending indictment and not having the right to prosecute over several times for violent crimes, and even though he has the history of being punished by a fine, it is not good that the defendant committed the crime in this case.

However, the fact that the defendant has no criminal records other than fines, and the defendant seems to have committed a crime mainly due to drinking, and the defendant is trying to prevent recidivism, such as currently being hospitalized in order to treat the existence of alcohol, etc., and all other sentencing conditions are taken into account, the punishment shall be determined like the order.