A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 6, 2018, the Defendant, at around 22:10, entered the main points of the Victim C’s Operation D in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, without any reason, made it impossible for many unspecified customers to enter the main points without any reason, to enter the main points of the Victim C’s Operation D in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. C’s statement;

1. Investigation report (No. 5 in a list of evidence);

1. Recording notes of the details of investigation into telephone communications by a witness C;

1. The 112 reported case settlement table, respectively;

1. Application of the receipt statute

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the choice of imprisonment);

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 criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall interfere with the affairs, and the basic area (referring to six months to one year and six months) (referring to a person who has no special sentencing seal) of the basic area;

2. Although the Defendant was subject to punishment of fines on several occasions due to a crime interfering with business affairs, he/she did not improve his/her character and conduct, and committed the instant crime (the Defendant repeated the principal offense, but does not seem to have made efforts to avoid re-offending). The degree of interference with business affairs does not seem to be negligible and the victim suffered considerable business damage due to the Defendant’s act.

A injured person is punished for the defendant.

Considering the above unfavorable circumstances, the defendant should be punished with severe punishment, but it seems necessary to give the defendant an opportunity of reflective treatment in society instead of custody, because the defendant has been found to be erroneous, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and the defendant needs to be given an opportunity of reflective treatment in society.