A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 03:00 on August 26, 2013, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s marina business by force by avoiding disturbance for about 10 minutes a hour and 10 minutes a hour and 10 minutes a week and 10 minutes a week, where the victim “mait 24 p.m.,” operated by the victim I of the damage in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju-gu, “Is a cigarette in a fright,” where the victim spits or spits the bend on the floor of the bend, and thereby interfered with the victim’s marina business by force.

2. The Defendant caused property damage, at the above date, at the above time and place, sent the disturbance to three women out of the above Maart, and then received a demand from the above women, which led to the said women, to walk the table table in an amount equivalent to 100,000 won at the market price of the above victims owned by the said women, which was the victim's possession, at the same time and place, and had police officers dispatched after receiving a report at that time, see the police officer K, who moved out of the above table and line on the floor, set the table table and line on the floor away from the floor and fell off on the floor, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement of I;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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

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

1. On the Defendant’s assertion of probation, community service order, and order to attend a lecture under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disorder or mental and physical disability by stating that he had no memory at the time of each of the crimes of this case. Thus, according to the records of this case, it is recognized that the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.