A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On March 16, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to 11 months of imprisonment for special intimidation, interference with business, assault, or bodily injury in this Court, and completed the execution of the sentence in Daegu Prison on October 13, 2017.

On November 24, 2017, around 16:50, the Defendant told the victim that “D” restaurant located in the Busan East-gu Busan Metropolitan City (Operation of the Victim E (hereinafter “E president”) “D” without any particular reason, and interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force for about 30 minutes, by taking advantage of the following: (a) under the influence of alcohol; (b) the Defendant expressed the victim “hyn humb hum humb hum.” to the restaurant customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement prepared by the President;

1. Investigation report (for example, 6,12) ;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry about criminal history, investigation report (13) and personal confinement status, and application of the text of the judgment;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 of the option of punishment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommendations] interference with business affairs of category 1 (Interference with Business) [1 month or 8 months] mitigation area (a person subject to special mitigation]: The person subject to aggravated punishment where the degree of threat of force or the degree of interference with business is minor: The person subject to aggravated punishment: (a) commits the instant crime again of the same kind within the scope of punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for the same repeated crime (determination of punishment) and 40 days after release; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime again after release; (c) committed the instant crime at the same point in the same week in 2013; and (d) the Defendant committed the injury requiring eight-day medical treatment and received a summary order (this Court Decision 2013Da15132) but again committed the instant crime; and (d) the victim could have made efforts to recover from the victim’s emotional distress and make compensation for the injury.