A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(2) On October 15, 2015, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 to a charge of interfering with business affairs at the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court) on October 15, 2015, and on November 20, 2015, the Seoul Southern District Court was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for interference with business affairs and larceny and entered on June 19, 2016 in the indictment as of July 20, 2016.

The execution of the sentence was completed.

[Criminal facts] On August 12, 2016, around 14:40 on August 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) operated by the Victim D in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) around 14:40; (b)*Mat, after purchasing the smallpos, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about 30 minutes by paying time to customers and employees who purchased goods at that place.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victimized person by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Photographs of the criminal defendant at the scene;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and Acts and subordinate statutes as the result of prisoners search;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to ten years; and

2. Aggravation of the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment [the types of decisions] interference with the affairs of the person subject to special sentencing]: The area of aggravation of the same repeated crime (the area of recommendation and the scope of the recommended punishment], one year to six months of imprisonment.

3. The Defendant, who was sentenced to the sentence on November 20, 2015, was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for the crime of interference with business, etc. on November 20, 2015, and the execution of the sentence was completed, and the Defendant committed the crime of this case to the same criminal, and there was a record of being sentenced to a fine on several occasions for interference with business affairs.

However, the sentencing guidelines are lower than the lower limit in consideration of the fact that the defendant's mistake is against the defendant, the violence is not likely to be used at the time of the crime, the damage is not relatively heavy, and the sentencing conditions in the records and changes are considered.