On February 4, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for ten months at the Busan District Court for the crime of interference with business, and completed the execution of the sentence on September 21, 2016.

At around 18:00 on October 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by avoiding disturbance for about 15 minutes, including: (b) around 18:00, at the restaurant operated by the victim (n, 60 years of age) in the Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City, the Defendant her tobacco smoking to customers; (c) collected the food of customers as his/her hand; and (d) even though the victim demanded to leave the restaurant several times, he/she refused it; and (d) refused it; and (e) took the chair.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the police;

1. On-site photographs of obstruction of business;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, reply reports, and the application of statutes as a result of prisoners' search;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders [the scope of recommending punishment] Article 35 of the Criminal Act [the reason for sentencing] interference with the affairs of the First Class (Interference with Business) [1 to 3 years] of the aggravated area (1 to 6 months] [the decision of sentence] of the same repeated crime [the defendant] has a record of criminal punishment several times for various crimes including the same crime. In particular, the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender due to the crime of causing property damage and damage, and was released from the police after being arrested as a flagrant offender and being released from the police for about 20 minutes.

In light of this, the defendant is highly likely to repeat the crime, and there is a question about whether the defendant is genuine in light of the attitude of pleading, and because the attitude of interference with business is considerably poor, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, as well as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in the same manner as the sentence.

However, it is only one time that the crime is lower than the lower limit of the recommended sentence.