A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from around 09:00 on June 24, 2016 to around 10:05 on the same day, from around 09:05 to around 10:05 on the same day, to the victim D (58 3) who is the owner of the above restaurant business, without any reason, alcoholic beverages in the 'C' restaurant located in the 'C' restaurant located in Busan Metropolitan City, and without any reason, “this ring, funeral services have been carried out.”

Is within the territory of Korea

“Aknife knife”, “Aknife kn if

The Doctrine theory is called "," and the conduct was committed to take the body of a victim out of the body, and the Doctrine was obstructed the operation of the cafeteria by force for about one hour, including the Doctrine of the Doctrine and the Doctrine of the Doctrine by gathering the Doctrine of the table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes in which statements made by the police in D are recorded;

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 under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] The grounds for sentencing [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] from one month to five years [the scope of applicable sentences] interference with business affairs] - [the special sentencing person] - [the scope of recommended sentences] reduction area [the scope of recommendation area] from one month to eight months / [the scope of suspended sentence] main reasons - there are no criminal records of not less than positive punishment (including serious efforts to recover damage) - there are no criminal records of not less than positive and contingent suspended sentence (the decision of sentencing was sentenced to suspended indictment once as a result of interference with business affairs, and the defendant was punished twice as a fine, and there are no other criminal records of several times, and thus, the defendant committed the crime of this case more severe punishment than the previous one.

However, it does not seem that serious damage to the victim is caused by interference with business.