A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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.

Punishment of the crime

around 05:00 on October 3, 2017, the Defendant expressed a desire to enter the convenience store within the “EE convenience store managed by the victim D” in the Mana-gu Mana-gu Mana-gu Ma, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s convenience store business by force over two hours, such as: (a) coming outside and outside of the convenience store; (b) coming away from the convenience store; (c) making customers unable to count; and (d) threatening and threaten the victim’s humiliation without any reason; and (d) interfered with the victim’s convenience store business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of CCTV images at convenience points);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is that the Defendant had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, etc., but again committed the instant crime, etc., the liability for the crime is not easy. However, the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, there is no history of criminal punishment heavier than the fine, and all the other conditions for sentencing, including the Defendant’s age and environment, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: