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

The defendant is a person who operates a main point and has recently been in a different relationship with the victim D (the victim 34 years of age).

1. Around 05:00 on February 18, 2016, the injured Defendant found the F entertainment tavern for the operation of the D in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and demanded a password to verify the CCTV, but he was rejected from D, the injured Defendant sustained each victim H (50 years of age)’s face, who is an employee, walked up to the course of the Victim G (26 years of age), taken the face by hand, taken the head knife, taken the head knife, taken the face of the Victim H (50 years of age), walked the victim’s knife by hand, walking the victim’s knife with it, and flife the victim’s knife the victim’s knife for three weeks of medical treatment.

2. The Defendant interfered with business at the above time, at the above place, interfered with the victim D’s main duties by force by force, such as: (a) at the time, at the above time and place, G and H, who are his employees, and (b) collected spawn disease; and (c) making customers who had spawn away from the place, and let them go out of the place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. Each police statement made to D and H;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. The assertion and determination of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding a photograph taken at the scene of the occurrence, CCTV images-fashion photographs, CCTV images CDs and defense counsel

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① in light of the degree of injury suffered by the victim G and H and the process of issuing the written diagnosis of injury, etc., the above victims cannot be deemed to have suffered injury, ② the above main points at the time were not customers, and the above main points were operated together with the above main points as a de facto spouse D, so the defendant's act does not constitute crime of interference with business even if the above main points were practically obstructed by the defendant's act.

2. Regarding injury.