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

At around 22:50 on May 19, 2018, the Defendant stated that D(40 years of age)’s employee “I will take son, bar code first” to the victim’s buckbbbbbs that she she she purchased in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C convenience calculation unit, and she continued to take the part of the victim’s buckbs that she she she she she she she she sawd, and she she she she was able to avoid disturbance over about one hour on the ground that “I will take her hand, bar code first.” Although the victim demanded her to take part in the convenience store, she continued to take part in the convenience store and she she was able to avoid disturbance by her for about one hour, such as she broken the bucker’s disease on the floor before the convenience store.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A report on investigation (the sequence 4 in list of evidence);

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 314 (1) of the Election of Imprisonment or Imprisonment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (hereinafter “the grounds for the remaining sentence”), which is favorable to the defendant;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Probation and Social Service Order is a normal situation that prevents the victim's convenience store business by avoiding disturbance, such as putting the victim under the convenience store, putting the victim under dispute with the victim, who was an employee, while putting the victim under dispute with the victim before entering the convenience store and making calculation. Even though the victim demanded the victim to go at the convenience store, putting the victim under the convenience store, putting the victim under the view of the victim, putting the victim under the view of the convenience store and breaking the disease on the street before the convenience store, thereby obstructing the victim's convenience store business. Therefore, the crime of this case is not good, even if the defendant had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime and violent crime, the crime of this case was committed, and the responsibility for such crime is not less less than that of the defendant.