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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

around 01:30 on April 30, 2019, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s operation of the restaurant by force by force, such as: (a) around 01:30, the Defendant: (b) at the D cafeteria operated by the victim C in Yongsan-gu, Manyang-si; (c) at the D cafeteria operated by the victim C, having a large amount of music while drinking and drinking; and (d) the Defendant demanded to pay the price for KRW 40,00,000,000 to be paid; (d) the iron plates containing food, having no food massage, throwing the iron plates containing food on the floor, and taking a bath.

around 07:24 May 5, 2019, the Defendant visited the “G” operated by the Victim F (23 years of age) located on the first floor of the building in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, to make smoking in a place where smoking is prohibited, while the Defendant visited the victim as a customer, and made smoking in the place where smoking is prohibited, without paying the fee for drinking and smoking, and prevented the victim from participating in the operation of the restaurant by force.

Summary of Evidence

"2019 Highest 1351"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. On-site photographs "2019 Highest 1422";

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following sentencing grounds) is that each of the crimes of this case is under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, thereby obstructing the operation of the restaurant of victims.

The defendant has a record of criminal punishment of several fines in relation to the exercise of violence.

However, it is advantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and reflected, that the victims did not want punishment for the defendant, that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding fines, and that there is no record of health status.