A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

From May 23, 2015 to 22:50 to 23:50 on May 23, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force, such as: (a) the victim was punished by the victim’s report in relation to avoiding disturbance at the same place as before the instant case; (b) the victim expressed the victim’s desire to “Chewing and the same year”; and (c) taking the bath to the customers who had been in the instant place; and (d) taking the bath to the customers who had been in the instant place; and (e) making the customers who had been in the instant place enjoy the disturbance by drinking expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements of victims;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 314 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is committed on the grounds that the defendant was punished as the victim's report on interference with the business of the victim, and thus, the defendant's awareness of the fact that he was punished as the victim's report on interference with the business of the victim is likely to interfere with the restaurant business of the victim, and the crime is serious.

However, considering all the circumstances, such as the defendant's reflectivity, the fact that there is no criminal record of a suspended sentence for more than 20 years, the elderly, and the character and conduct of the defendant, the environment, the motive and circumstances of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.