The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Punishment of the crime

On June 9, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and on August 10, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 10, 2017.

On January 25, 2017, the Defendant, at around 23:50 on January 25, 2017, lent tobacco value to the victim E, who is the owner of the above main shop, under the influence of alcohol in Suwon-si C'D located in Suwon-si, and changed the value of tobacco. However, the Defendant became the victim.

The defect "Cr. Cr. S. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. H., it obstructed the victim E's main business by force by avoiding disturbance for about 10 to 20 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police victim to E;

1. Each police investigation report (the identity of the suspect, the attachment of a list to handle reported cases, etc.);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: (A) a reply, such as inquiry about criminal history, report on investigation (verification of repeated crimes and fact of progress of appellate trial, review of whether the previous trial is appropriate), application of the defendant's statutory statement statutes;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Exemption of Punishment Act (when considering the details of the crime of interference with the business as indicated in the judgment, etc., and circumstances after the crime, etc., the crime of interference with the business of this case cannot be deemed to have been more severe even if the judgment was rendered at the same time with the above crime, and thus, exemption from punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time) / [Defendant and defense counsel, despite having been already punished due to interference with the business of the same place on January 27, 2017, the act of this case, which was notified, was deemed to be a second crime, and the disposition was revoked and prosecuted on a separate basis, is

However, it is clear that the act of interference with the business of this case interfered with the business of January 27, 2017, and it is separate from the act of interference with the business of this case, and in light of the time of cancellation of the notification disposition and the time of investigation and prosecution against the defendant.