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

On December 26, 2017, from around 02:30 to 04:45 on the same day, the Defendant was removed from the victim C’s “D liquor house” operated by Ulsan Northern-gu, Ulsan-gu, to see the urine on the floor of the drinking house from the victim who suffered damage to view the urine on the drinking house floor.

For about 2 hours to 15 minutes and 15 minutes, the victim's main store business affairs were obstructed by force by avoiding the disturbance, such as humb, humbk, humb, and humbing the victim and the surrounding customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs on crime scene;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the reason for sentencing”), the reason for sentencing [the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines] under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter “the reason for sentencing”), and the reason for obstructing the business [the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines] under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter “the reason for sentencing”): The scope of the special sentencing under the Act on the Suspension of Punishment (including efforts to recover damage): January through August): January 5 (the decision of sentence] is not good in light of the defendant’s criminal method and attitude, etc., and the nature of the crime is not less than the period of interference with the business, and even if there was a record of having already been punished twice for the same kind of crime in 2017, it is unfavorable for the defendant.

However, it is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has recognized his mistake and is in profoundly against his depth, that the degree of the threat of force or interference with the business of the crime of this case is not serious, that the victim has agreed with the victim after the prosecution, and that the victim has not been punished for the defendant, and that the defendant has no criminal record of suspended execution or more.

In addition, the records and arguments, such as the age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are shown.