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

1. On November 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 12:25, the victim C, operated in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, had other customers with a view to drinking mixed alcoholic beverages attached to the “D cafeteria”; (b) in the process of drinking mixed alcoholic beverages, the Defendant took a large amount of bath with a view to large sounds; and (c) in the process of making the sprinking and pushinging the sprink of the customer, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force by preventing the customers, who were in the said restaurant from entering the said restaurant by avoiding the disturbance of about 30 minutes, such as pressing the sprinking of the customer and the chairing the sprink.

2. At around 20:40 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) found in the said D cafeteria; and (b) demanded the victim to leave the cafeteria under the influence of alcohol that he was suspected of interfering with his duties; (c) rejected the victim’s demand to leave the cafeteria; and (d) prevented customers who were entering the said cafeteria from entering the cafeteria by avoiding about 30 minutes of the disturbance; and (d) obstructed the victim’s cafeteria business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C;

1. Application of the statutes on report on the relative investigation of witnesses;

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

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. According to Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of this case), the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but the defendant was found to have lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time.

It is difficult to see the reasons for sentencing sentencing [the scope of recommended punishment] The mitigated area (from to 8 months) [the person who is subject to special sentencing] is agreed with the victim of the decision who is not sentenced to punishment, the degree of damage, and other records of this case, such as the background and form of the crime, circumstances after the crime, the defendant's health, age, sexual behavior, environment, etc.