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

On August 8, 2015, the Defendant purchased bread at the “E” control point for the operation of C Victim D in Namyang-si, Namyang-si on August 22:35, 2015, and on the ground that “bregs, Chewing, bregs, and bregs, bregs this breh.

“Abrecking a disturbance due to putting the bresh, brecing the breed, etc. on the floor, and thus, the customers could not enter the tasks.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's over-point business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. In light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to a crime recognized by the court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the method and method of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, the judgment on the assertion of a severe disability by the Defendant under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution under the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to have reached a state where the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time and make decisions, under the influence of alcohol.

Reasons for sentencing

1. One month to five years from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for a prison labor in law; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] the basic area [the scope of the recommended punishment] in the category 1 (Interference with the Business] [the determination of the recommended area] [the scope of the recommended punishment] from June to June 1.

3. In full view of the circumstances below the sentencing criteria and other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, method and mode of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, the sentencing criteria shall be set as ordered within the scope of the recommended sentencing criteria.

- The degree of interference with work is not more severe than serious reflect, or there is no criminal conviction or heavier than suspended execution, but not much serious, that the Defendant suffers cerebral typhism (cronology), and that the health status is not good.