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

1. On December 19, 2015, the Defendant, who interfered with his/her business, listens to the warning that he/she would be able to see from customers while working in a “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 19, 2015, while engaging in a sexual dispute with E, he/she shall lose his/her death.

Bador Bador

“Around the same day by the end of 10:20 on the same day, customers who were in the restaurant by avoiding the disturbance, and by preventing customers from entering the restaurant, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force between one hour and 20 minutes.

2. The Defendant damaged property by avoiding disturbance at the time and place as described in paragraph 1, and thereby damaging the entrance door to the extent that 520,000 won of the repair cost by cutting the entrance door of the said restaurant, which is the victim’s possession, by hand, that the damaged person enters the restaurant.

3. Around 10:50 on December 19, 2015, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the victim E (45 tax) who was working in front of the “G singing” singing in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, and the body fighting with singkes, while the Defendant was driving in front of the “G singinging,” and the victim took several steps with the face of the victim, resulting in the victim’s injury, such as the luminous bones, bones, and the singke of the singke, which require approximately eight weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol against C and E;

1. A H statement;

1. Photographss of damaged photographs and CCTV images to be taken;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Written estimate;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements of a wooden shot, listen to telephone statements with a witness as at the time of witness and reporting with theO);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of harm) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the 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. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s damage caused by each of the instant crimes is very large; (b) the Defendant agreed with the victims; and (c) the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine; and (d) his mistake.