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

On December 20, 2016, around 23:30 on December 20, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s main business by force, such as “F,” working for the victim E (n, 28 years of age) in the North-gu Seoul Northern District, Gwangju, for the reason that the drinking value has come to a higher level than that of the victim, and making the victim feel a serious desire, and making the victim feel a disturbance, and allowing the customer to leave the disturbance.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of defendants who have made a statement in court;

1. Application of the written E to police investigation reports (on-site conditions and victim statements) and statutes;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and interference with the affairs of category 1 (Interference with Duties) (one month to eight months) (including special mitigation persons] and non-members of the punishment (including serious efforts to recover damage);

2. Determination of sentence: (a) comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the details of the instant crime; and (b) the sentence as ordered.

Conditions disadvantageous: The degree of interference with the operation of a person under the influence of alcohol after 2015, and circumstances that are favorable to the fact that there was a record of punishment of each fine due to an act of assault, etc. against the driver:

I do not seem to have any agreement with the victim. They appear to be against the victim.