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

1. On December 24, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business over twenty (20) minutes by force, such as: (a) while drinking alcohol and food together with his/her daily operation within a D restaurant managed by the victim C on December 24, 2017, the Defendant: (b) was gathering the soft and water reservoir on the table; (c) the victim had already brought his/her liquor to the floor; and (d) the victim had already brought his/her liquor, thereby interfering with the victim’s restaurant business over twenty (20) minutes by force.

2. 재물 손괴 피고인은 위 1. 항 기재 일시 및 장소에서 위 1. 항 기재와 같이 피해자 소유의 시가 20,000원 상당의 수저 통을 던져 부숴지게 하고, 시가 미 상의 소주잔을 던져 깨지게 하는 등 손괴하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and selection of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and observation has been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, the criminal liability is not less exceptionally given that the defendant again committed the instant crime.

However, it is decided as per the disposition by comprehensively considering the fact that the defendant is against the victim, the agreement with the victim, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age and environment.