beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Criminal facts
The Defendant, from February 26, 2016 to February 16, 2016, from 15:30 to 16:00, “Der” of the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim C’s Operation, and, on the ground that the Defendant sold goods, “packers will not perform funeral services in the future.” The Defendant shall be bit bit of bit of a bitbit of a bit of a bit of a bitch, which he was
Such Chewing gue’s gue and sound 20 minutes, which make it difficult for the victim to engage in a frighting activity or make it difficult for customers to enter the fright, thereby interfering with the victim’s frighting business by force.
Summary of Evidence
1. The legal statement of the witness C;
1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;
1. Application of C’s written laws and regulations
1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of the recommended sentence] interference with business affairs [the basic area of interfering with business affairs]: six months to one year and six months [the person subject to special sentencing] [the person subject to special sentencing]] [the decision of sentence] is not likely to be subject to criticism against the defendant considering the circumstances leading to the exercise of the instant power, the attitude of the defendant after the crime, etc. However, considering the degree of the power exercised, it is difficult to cut off the defendant significantly.
In addition to these circumstances, considering all the sentencing conditions shown in the proceedings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, and criminal records, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment as ordered.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.