A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[2018 Godan 1516] On April 16, 2018, at the main point of “D” operated by the victim C in Seo-gu, Gwangju around 23:30 on April 16, 2018, the Defendant dumpeded the victim and other customers at a large interest with the victim and other customers without any reason under the influence of alcohol, and dumped the time expenses, and dumped from the police officers dispatched by the victim’s report, and dumpeded back from the above main point. The Defendant dumpddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

[2] From May 27, 2018 to May 23:52, 2018, the Defendant expressed, without any reason, the victim and other customers a large voice from the victim F in Seo-gu, Gwangju to the victim F, 00:13 on May 27, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s work of drinking house operation by force, such as, under the influence of alcohol, the victim and other customers, who walked for a large amount of voice from the victim to the victim and other customers.

Summary of Evidence

[2018 Highest 1516]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C [2018 Highest 2823]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report of investigation (referring to a reference and telephone call);

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

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

1. The fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is divided in depth, that there is an agreement with the victim C, that there is no emphasis on the degree of interference with business, and that there is no previous offense exceeding the fine is more favorable.

However, there are multiple criminal records who were punished for committing a crime similar to this case, and the appellate court is continuing to be sentenced to a fine for a crime of interference with the same business as this case, and the crime of interference with other business (the person of this case) is committed.