A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 7, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by the Gwangju District Court for interference with business affairs, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Gwangju Prison on August 9, 2016.

2. On May 28, 2018, the Defendant was unable to bring a disturbance for about one hour, such as drinking alcohol at the restaurant called the main store operated by the victim C (V, 56 years old) in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and taking a bath to the defective victim that the victim would not allow him/her to pay the drinking value in advance, taking the victim’s bath at the bar, cutting the tebbbbs at that place on the floor, and cutting the beer residues on the floor.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's operation of the restaurant by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Photographs (net 2);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, text of judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 114, 2016 High Court Decision 1140No 1140), and statutes on personal confinement status;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommending punishment] interference with the duties of Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and the scope of comparative sentence between the area of aggravation (one year to three years) [the specially aggravated person] of the area of aggravation (one year to six months] [the person subject to special aggravation] compared to the punishment for the same type of repeated crime: Imprisonment for one year to three years]. The defendant has been punished several times for the same crime. In particular, even though he had the record of being punished for the same type of repeated crime in 2016, the defendant again committed the crime in this case without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime after the prison term of the above crime, and it is inevitable to sentence the defendant as a sentence.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant is against the wrongness while making a confession of the crime, the fact that the victim agreed with the victim during the course of the investigation, etc., the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court shall set the punishment, such as the order, off the lower limit of