A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 14, 2014, at around 19:00, the Defendant: (a) stated that the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Underground Award No. 3 was an extraordinary victim D; (b) stated that the Defendant filed a complaint with respect to the fact that the Defendant had stolen the victim’s wall; and (c) expressed the victim’s desire to “not to keep the victim away; and (d) would interfere with the victim’s sales operation by force by avoiding disturbance; and (c) obstructed the business of operating the victim’s store by force on 26 occasions, such as the list of crimes, from June 14, 2013 to November 21, 2014, the Incheon underground store interfered with the business of operating the commercial store by force of 22 merchants.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, H, I, D, and J;

1. Each statement prepared by the K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, U,V, W, X, Y, and Z;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to listen to a victim's P telephone statement);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent offenders is the case where the defendant, while returning to the underground shopping mall for about one year and six months, interferes with the work of the victims who are merchants by using a high-morrogate, crypology, garbage urine, obscenity, obscene act, indecent act, demand for money and goods, know-how, etc.

Although the victims continued to engage in activities that interfere with the defendant's business for several years, they did not report that they would be retaliationed against the defendant or suffer property damage. However, the defendant's interference with the defendant's business continued to exist later, they made a statement to the investigation agency about the crime of this case.

As such, the defendant's act of obstructing the work in the foundation of victims by causing fear and displeasure to the victims who have found the victims and commercial buildings over a considerable period of time is not very good.