A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

(e).

Punishment of the crime

On September 8, 2018, from around 01:05 to around 01:35, the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by drinking in the “D” restaurant operated by the victim C (S) located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, by “D” restaurant, i.e., “to live, to see, to do so,” and by doing so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a 112-report processing table (16 pages of investigation records), investigation report (Attachment of investigation records), one on-site photograph, investigation report (defluor E Search and Investigation), investigation report (in the face of interference with business, cellphone photographic photo and CD), one cell phone photographing video CD, one cellphone photograph, and one cellphone photographic photo;

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

1. Reasons for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act shall be considered in light of the following factors: (a) there is no basic area (f.g., category 1 (f., month to January 6) [f., there] [f., there] [f., there] the defendant has the power to be punished for violent crimes; (b) the defendant has no damage recovery or agreement; (c) the defendant has a wrong judgment; and (d) the defendant has no record of being punished for the crime of interference with business; and (d) the defendant has no record of being punished for the crime of interference with business; and (e) the defendant shall be sentenced to a sentence lower than the minimum recommended sentence for the sentencing guidelines by taking into account

Public prosecution dismissed part (a point of violence)

1. The Defendant of this part of the facts charged at around 00:40 on September 8, 2018, at the main point of “G” in the operation of the Victim F (M, 58 years old) located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant heard the victim’s speech that the Defendant completed the business, and entered the center.