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

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant is a customer who visited the sacrine located in B at the time of the instant case, and the victim C is a person who operates the said sacr.

1. Around 03:04 on January 5, 2020, the Defendant: (a) made soup and making soup and making soup (18cc, vertical 31cc) on the ground that the frying machine does not work properly; (b) on the ground that the frying machine does not work properly; (c) on the ground of the frying machine, the Defendant: (d) on the ground that the frying machine, the frying machine, the fying machine, the fying machine, the fying machine, the entrance, and the glass window were set up in hand; (d) on the ground that the fying machine was set up in the fyer or the fyke, the Defendant collected the fyer’s fyer’s fyer’s 9,850,000 won and the fyer’s fyer’s fyer’s fyer’s fyer’s 00.

2. On January 5, 2020, from around 03:04 to 03:25, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim by force, thereby obstructing the victim’s privacy or business by force, by making the customers using the spawn by smoking eggs, such as destroying goods, smoking, and returning to the spawn, which are dangerous objects as described in the preceding paragraph, by taking advantage of the iron makers, as described in the preceding paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. The Defendant asserts that on-site photographs, CCTV closure photographs, specifications of transaction, estimates, damage details, and USB (CCTV image) did not interfere with the victim’s business by “defluence.”

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant's act is sufficiently recognized as constituting "defluence" as stated in the crime of interference with business, as it may disrupt a person's free will.