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.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 2, 2015, from around 03:30 to 04:00 on the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by putting the victim’s restaurant “D” operated by the victim C in Gyeonggi Government-si B, on the ground that his/her employees did not find any work together with the Defendant, and thus, he/she did not take place with the Defendant, i.e., e., e., “Chewing infants and the same opening,” and she took a bath at the entrance of the said restaurant, and she interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by forcibly allowing the victim to go against the disturbance, such as placing him/her on the entrance of the said restaurant.

2. The Defendant causing property damage, at the time and place indicated in the above paragraph (1) above, destroyed KRW 2.80,00 of the repair cost by destroying the table table, which was placed behind the Defendant, without any reason, while dividing the police officers and talks who were called out after receiving a report from the victim, and the victim’s air conditioners and free doors owned by the said restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Receipts and estimates;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on photographic materials related to damage;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished as an act of violence several times prior to the instant case, it is reasonable to strictly punish the defendant in light of the fact that the defendant has committed the instant crime. However, the defendant is against the recognition of the facts of the instant crime, taking into account all the factors such as the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., and