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 becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 22, 2019, at around 21:30 on August 22, 2019, the Defendant: (a) was drinking alcohol at the D’s main point in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was operated by the Victim B (L, 41 years of age) and obstructed the victim’s main point operation by force for approximately 20 minutes by getting the victim to walk his horses to the customers; (b) the police officer dispatched to the scene by the victim’s report to the scene was shot away from the surrounding area; and (c) the police officer sent back to the scene due to the victim’s report was shot away from the surrounding area; and (d) on the same day, at around 22:54, the Defendant returned back to the above place; and (d) obstructed the victim’s main point operation by getting the victim’s disturbance, such as moving the victim’s hand to several times, thereby obstructing the victim’s main point operation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. B written statements;

1. 112 Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning reported details;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and lecture attendance order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] interference with business affairs [Type 1] interference with business affairs (special person] - mitigated factors: Where the degree of power and deceptive scheme or the degree of interference with business affairs is insignificant (the area of recommendation and the scope of recommended punishment] reduced range, imprisonment with labor for one month to eight months (general person).

3. Determination of sentence: Although the Defendant had been previous, the Defendant interfered with the business of a restaurant operated by another person without any particular reason, and the liability for such crime is not minor.

The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and even when he/she was investigated by an investigative agency, he/she was under the influence of alcohol when he/she was present at this court.

In full view of the defendant's occupation, family environment, etc., it seems that there was no opportunity to receive professional counseling or medical treatment for drinking habits, and the degree of interference with the business of this case.