On March 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) visited the victim D (V, 50 years of age) in Ansan-si, Annsan-si, Annsan-si, Annsan-si, whose employee works for “E” restaurant, while under the influence of alcohol; and (b) visited the damaged person at the time of his/her entry.

If possible, the liquor tax shall be required as soon as possible.

“Along with the victim’s words, the victim was able to take a bath with a large sound, and obstructed the restaurant business of the victim for about 20 minutes by driving the disturbance three times in his hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made in the police statement protocol with D;

1. Application of each video statute to the instant pictures

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, type 1 (Interference with Business) in the mitigated area (one month to eight months) (including efforts to recover damage), Defendant who is not subject to punishment (including those who have been specially mitigated), committed the same type of crime during the suspended execution period, even though he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for about 15 months and for interference with the performance of official duties on January 14, 2015, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same six months, and for two years during the suspended execution period, even during the suspended execution period, in consideration of the fact that there is a great risk of recidivism.

In determining the term of punishment, the defendant has shown an attitude against the crime of this case, taking into account favorable circumstances such as the agreement with the victim, and setting the term of punishment like the order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.