1. From around 07:00 on May 31, 2013 to 07:50 on the same day, the Defendant had the victim D’s “E” restaurant operated by Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern District, and had the victim go away from the restaurant by avoiding the disturbance by taking advantage of why the victim refused to do so, i.e., why he was friencing “hyp, fypine,” and making the victim feel hypines, such as the softened, drinking water, and knife the floor, hump the floor, and hump the victim hump over several hundreds.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and place indicated in paragraph (1) as indicated in paragraph (1), told the victim to be imprisoned from the victim F, who was mixed with a boomed boomed boom, such as paragraph (1), and openly insulting the victim, among the aforementioned D, female employees in the above restaurant, and other customers, who were the victim, was sexually insulting.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to securing CCTV-recording data in an cafeteria);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. From among concurrent crimes, a defendant with reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the sentence is inevitable in light of the following: (a) on May 11, 2012, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. by this court; (b) on May 19, 2012, the above judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive on May 19, 2012; and

However, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim D after the conclusion of pleadings, and that the victim D did not sell alcohol, thereby resulting in a contingent crime while under the influence of alcohol, and that the suspension of execution is expected to be revoked due to the crime of this case, and that it is against the law.