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

1. Crimes in the B cafeteria;

A. On February 14, 2015, at around 14:00, the Defendant found the victim D (n, 55 years of age)’s B cafeteria in Mayang-si, and found the victim’s b c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c

B. On February 28, 2015, the Defendant was above the Defendant around 17:00.

Disturbing in the state of being taken in the B cafeteria as described in the port, the disturbance is avoided, and the victim released the Defendant out of the restaurant, and opened the entrance at the locked's hand, and opened the door locked at the market price, which is the victim's possession.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the cafeteria operation of the victim by force, and at the same time damaged the victim's property.

C. On March 10, 2015, the Defendant was above the Defendant around 13:20.

In the state of drinking in the B cafeteria as stated in the port, the victim was asked to drink, but the victim was asked to refuse it, and the victim was able to do so. After the victim saw the defendant out of the cafeteria, the victim was able to walk the entrance to the locked by walking the entrance.

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

2. On March 7, 2015, the Defendant committed an offense in E cafeteria was found in the E cafeteria operated by the victim G (n, 65 years of age) of the Mayang-si F on March 7, 2015, and was found to have known that the Defendant’s de facto spouse was going to work in the said cafeteria, by leaving the cafeteria (n, 46 years of age) with the knowledge that the Defendant’s de facto spouse was going to work in the said cafeteria, which led the Defendant to avoid any disturbance, such as “Iskn, Dok, Dok, Dok, Dokn, Sick.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1...