A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 17, 2012, from around 03:30 to 05:10 on the same day, the Defendant saw that, in the Embel operated by the victim D in Jeju-si, the victim would go through the telebane corridor without disclosing the victim’s intent to lodging, without stating his/her intent to lodging, and the victim demanded that the customer be obstructed by him/her, and that the victim would be obstructed by him/her, the Defendant saw the victim as “this spath, who is fest, who is inside the inside the police, is fluor, who is coming from the police station, fluor, and was fluored on the upper part of the incidental tourist guide.”

그 후 피고인은 피해자의 112신고를 받고 현장 출동한 경찰관들이, 다른 곳에 숙소가 있다고 설명하는 피고인에게 퇴거를 권유하였음에도 “짭새 개새끼들아, 여관 주인한테 돈먹었냐”라고 큰소리를 치고 피해자에게 욕설을 하며 계속하여 모텔을 떠나지 않는 등 약 1시간 40분 동안 소란을 피워, 위 모텔에 손님들이 들어오지 못하게 하였다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of each police protocol to D and F

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. 보호관찰, 사회봉사 형법 제62조의2 양형의 이유 피고인은 2008년 업무방해죄, 상해죄, 2010년 공용물건손상죄, 2013년 업무방해죄 2회 등 일명 ‘주폭(酒暴)’ 전과가 5회에 이르고, 이 사건 역시 술을 마시고 타인의 영업을 방해한 것으로 위 전과와 별반 다르지 않다.

The defendant was arrested and released after being arrested in the act of committing the crime of this case, and his whereabouts were unknown after being arrested and released twice thereafter, and eventually re-exploited and detained.

The defendant is the defendant.