A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 26, 2011, the Defendant is a person who was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with labor or 2 years of suspended execution as a result of the crime of interference with business in Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 4, 2011, and is currently subject

1. On May 12, 2012, from around 19:00 to around 19:30, the Defendant: (a) expressed, without any justifiable reason, the victim D’s “E” operated by Ansan-gu Manan-gu Manan-gu Manan-gu Manan-gu Manan-gu; (b) expressed the victim’s desire to “this Man-gu Man-gu Man, Man-gu,” and, (c) expressed the victim the victim’s desire to “nick, gring,” and subsequently, interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. The Defendant: (a) from around 12:30 on May 13, 2012 to around 13:00, the Defendant reported to the police the Defendant who had been suffering disturbance as above; (b) sent the victim’s clothes to the police; and (c) sent the victim’s clothes to the victim “nicked that the Defendant reported to the police,” and expressed the victim “nicked that the Defendant reported to the Defendant,” and expressed the Defendant to the outside of the restaurant in front of the restaurant cafeteria, and expressed the Defendant “nick, Chewing, knick, knick, and reported to the Defendant,” thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business operation by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. 112. A statement for receipt of report of crime;

1. 112 patrol posts;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, etc. and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (120 pages of investigation records);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

2. Sentencing factors that are favorable to the Defendant’s erroneous reasoning for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent offenders, such as the fact that the Defendant reflects the error and that the Defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, or interfere with the Defendant’s duties while under the influence of alcohol, or assault.