A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 13:00, at the “Ecafeteria” operated by the victim D (the 66-year-old age), who was in the C market on May 19, 2012, she saw her will without any justifiable reason by entering the breath, and at the same time her will, she her four customers, who she was drinking with the boomed with the beer and her two customers, she her walked with the beer with the beer and her walked with the beer, and she her success for about 20 minutes by driving away the customers.

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

2. On July 9, 2012, at around 14:05, the Defendant habitually abused the victim’s eye at “G cafeteria” operated by the Victim F (F, 66 years of age) located in the above C market, and, without any justifiable reason, was found to be “this Chewing baby, and the young who is not this wraped,” and was drinking once the victim’s eye.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the police officer on F;

1. Three images of a site photograph of the obstruction of business;

1. Habituality of assault in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing the habition of assault in light of the fact that the same method of assault has been repeated for a certain period, and the period between each crime;

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), Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of habitual assault) of the Criminal Act;

1. Among concurrent crimes, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of each of the above crimes) include a majority of criminal records of the same type of violent and business interference crimes, and of retaliation crimes against victims who reported such crimes, and the defendant repeats the same crimes without stopping the crime even after being sentenced to punishment for the above crimes in around 2006, and thereby repeats the same crimes for the last four years.