A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor by the Seoul Eastern District Court on May 30, 2012 and completed the enforcement of the sentence in the Seoul Eastern District Court on September 9, 2012.

around 05:00 on March 9, 2015, the Defendant ordered a friendly and food food restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and 1, and had the victim E, who is an employee who works at a wraping place, and other customers receive a restraint on tobacco.

Therefore, the Defendant was unable to take a bath for 50 minutes of sound to the victims and other customers in large sound, and boomed with a disturbance on the ground that the Defendant is bad.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the sixth public trial date);

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Each written statement of E and G preparation;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal history, inquiry, identification and confinement status;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. Sentencing (Scope of the recommended punishment) (including efforts made to recover damage) where the degree of threat, deceptive scheme, or the degree of interference with business is insignificant in the area of special mitigation (one month to eight months) (special mitigation) within the scope of suspension of duties;

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he had been sentenced to a fine twice due to the crime of the same kind of crime, even though he had been in the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he had already been sentenced to a fine twice due to the crime of the said repeated crime, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant significantly because it seems that the Defendant clearly has a clear climate, and thus, it is unreasonable to punish the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to punishment, and the defendant's mistake is recognized as late as possible.