A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 24, 2017, from around 23:30 to around 00:00 on May 25, 2017, at the main point of “D’s operation” of the victim C in the second floor of the building B in Ansan-si, the Defendant: (a) found the victim from the above main point on the ground that he was prosecuted against the disturbance due to the instant case, etc. before which he was charged, and (b) found the victim, “I would have the customer who had 10 years of age taken three times or more, and would have him go to the trial immediately; (c) “I would have the customer go to the trial,” and “I would like to take the part of the customer who had 30 minutes of the disturbance from the said main point on the ground that I would like to take the part of the victim, “I would like to take three times or more during the same year, I would like to see what we would like to see.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the analysis, etc. of cellphone images);

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following sentencing shall be considered as favorable to the Supreme Court);

1. Sentencing 62-2 of the Criminal Act to observe protection and observation - Unfavorable circumstances: The fact that the nature of the crime is inferior in light of the criminal records against the victim, the motive and content of the crime of this case, the fact that the criminal records of the same kind of fine are two times in around 2015 - the criminal records of the crime of this case are recognized by the defendant, and the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant under the premise that the defendant would no longer take place any longer than the defendant while the victim planned to close the business immediately, and that there is no excessive criminal records of the fine.