A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

1. On December 15, 2015, from around 11:00 to 12:00 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Defendant had her wife F and his husband and wife fighting in the instant week operated by the victim D in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government while drinking together with his/her daily alcohol; (b) had her own sound, and had the victim take a bath to “Ie the instant year h. of the said day”; and (c) had other customers who drink in his/her place with his/her alcohol.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main business.

2. The Defendant, in the date and time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, refused to leave the victim’s request until the police officer called up for about 30 minutes after receiving a report on 112, such as “I see the victim’s mind” and “I see the victim’s mind,” even if he received a request to return home, he did not comply with the request to leave the victim until he arrests the Defendant in flagrant offender.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (Investigation into telephone communications by witnesses);

1. On-site dispatch reports;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the business report;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business Affairs, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 319 (2) and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of refusing to leave and the choice of imprisonment);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [type of determination] interference with the business of interfering with the scope of the recommended punishment [person with special sentencing] [person with special sentencing] mitigation factors (decision of the recommended area] [the scope of the recommended punishment] mitigation area] [the scope of the recommended punishment] obstruction of the above business from January to August / [the scope of the recommended punishment] is concurrent with the crime of refusing to leave without the sentencing guidelines and the crime of obstructing the above business in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, so only the lower limit of the sentencing range recommended in the sentencing guidelines is limited to the crime of obstructing the above business for which