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 25, 2016, the Defendant interfering with his/her duties, while drinking a mixed alcoholic beverage at the “E” restaurant operated by the Victim D (V, 35 years of age) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 25, 2016, the Defendant wishes to die his/her own other customers, along with “I wish to die;”

1. Doz. 10

The phrase "(i) interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force for about 30 minutes, such as unloading the table in both hands and breaking the hacker's hand on the table."

2. Around 14:30 on the same day as Paragraph 1, the Defendant attempted to destroy property damage by walking a rear-sturd passenger car owned by the victim F, who was parked in the above “E” restaurant, and by walking a rear-sturd passenger car, with a view to damaging the rear-sturd passenger car at hand by walking the sturd part of the jun and the sturg, etc., but the Defendant failed to commit an attempted crime due to the failure of the said sturd passenger car.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Police investigation report (specific as victims of property damage);

1. The next inquiry or the text message photograph;

1. Application of the video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the obstruction of business, the choice of imprisonment, and the option of punishment) concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 371 and 366 of the Criminal Act (the fact of attempted property damage and the choice of imprisonment);

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 stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service order;

1. Scope of the recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Obstruction of Business Affairs [Scope of Recommendation] Obstruction of Business Affairs>> The basic area (from June to one year and six months) (no person in special sentencing)

B. There are only the lower limit of the range of sentence for recommending interference with the duties for which the sentencing guidelines are set, and the attempts to damage goods for which the sentencing guidelines are not set, fall under concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus the lower limit of the scope of sentence for recommending interference with the duties for which the sentencing guidelines are set (not less