업무방해등
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
1. The Defendants, in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.), destroyed property jointly by jointly destroying the entrance and a glass wall so as to cover repair costs, while drinking alcohol at the two places of the “F” entertainment tavern 2, run by the victim E on July 6, 2014, which was operated by the victim E on the first floor D in Gui-si, Gui-si, on July 6, 2014.
2. On July 6, 2014, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victim E’s main store business by force, and interfered with the victim E’s main store business by avoiding a disturbance for about 30 minutes, such as gathering free and alcohol diseases, and taking a bath at the temporary location under the aforementioned paragraph (1).
3. On July 7, 2014, the Defendants: (a) conducted an investigation at the G District District District of the Guri Police Station on the grounds of the foregoing paragraphs (1) and (2) on July 7, 2014; and (b) subsequently, Defendant B obstructed the victim’s main business by soliciting the victim E to take a bath to “Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre,” and demanding the victim to return to it, “Irre, I will do so, and Irre, I will do so, I will do so, and will do so.”
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. Each statement of H (including the business license certificate attached thereto);
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph property damage at the damaged site;
1. The Defendants: The applicable provisions of Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the applicable provisions of the indictment are stipulated in Article 2(3) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. However, in light of the name of the crime, the description of the facts charged, etc., the above “paragraph (3)” is obvious that it is a clerical error in the “paragraph (2)” and therefore, it is explained as above without changing the indictment.
Paragraph 1.1.