A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 27, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor at the District Court for the crime of interference with business, and was released from the court of appeal on September 22, 2017 during the appellate trial, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 2, 2017.

At around 10:10 on May 19, 2019, the Defendant requested the victim from the restaurant in the name of “E” operated by the victim D (Inn, 53 years of age) located in Dong Government-si B to move in a fake. However, as the Defendant was refused from the victim, the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance for about 20 minutes by continuously displaying the Defendant’s chest and on the part of the Defendant’s chest and on the part of the Defendant, and continuously taking a bath.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement in F and D;

1. A report on investigation (a report confirming the victim's statement);

1. A report on investigation (a case of photographing a suspect's body) and a suspect's body photograph attached thereto;

1. Report on investigation (to take photographs of the place of crime and arrest place) and photographs of the place of crime attached thereto, and photographs of the place of arrest;

1. A criminal investigation report (the head of the feng, caps, and feassing images on the feass of the crime), and a photograph by capturing the screen of the crime attached thereto;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc., inquiry reports, investigation reports, judgment attached thereto, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the status of confinement of individuals;

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

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act, among repeated crimes, recognizes the defendant as substitute for the crime of this case, and under the favorable circumstances to the defendant that the victim wants to have a preference against the defendant by agreement with the victim, the defendant has already been punished several times due to the same criminal act, and the defendant has committed the crime of this case again even though he was under repeated crime due to the crime of previous conviction in the present judgment, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant.