A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On March 14, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for interference with business affairs at the Seoul Southern District Court, and on January 15, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for interference with business affairs and interference with the performance of public duties at the same court on February 28, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 28, 2014, and the sentence of the said suspended sentence was terminated on September 27, 2014.

On May 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 01:20, at “D” restaurant located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and (b) on the ground that the ordered food was delayed, and (c) on the ground that the Defendant was an employee E (38: 38) of the Victim E, the Defendant, “sing, singing

(h) Doesopia, brushia, disregarding Balk;

This son h. Does the desire to read, “this son h.” Does the 40 minutes of disturbance, such as breaking the strings containing food by pushing the mebbbb, breaking the strings of the floor, shacking the strings of the victim by shouldering the strings of the victim, booming them by large sounds around the restaurant entrance, preventing customers from entering the restaurant.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Previous conviction in judgment: Application of a written inquiry about criminal history, investigation report (criminal record of a suspect, etc.), text of judgment, and inquiry about the particulars of expropriation/collection by an individual;

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

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommendations] interference with the affairs of Article 35 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the following factors: (a) the mitigation area (one month to eight months) [the person who has been specially mitigated] [decision of sentencing] / the contents of the crime in the holding, (b) the number of concurrent crimes of the same kind] / regardless of the punishment repeated crimes committed by the defendant; (c) the victim repeats similar crimes despite the repeated punishment committed by the defendant; (d) the victim took advantage of the defendant's age, criminal records, sexual behaviors, and the circumstances after the crime; and (e) the punishment against the defendant is set as the order for the punishment against the defendant.