A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 29, 2018, the Defendant received a notice of penalty payment due to disturbance of drinking, on the ground that the victim C was not able to repay the money borrowed from his/her own wife, within D cafeteria operated by the Plaintiff C in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do on January 29, 2018, but instead received a notice of penalty payment due to disturbance of drinking, the Defendant found the same bit of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch

Abring about 20 minutes of the disturbance, such as hinginginging down rapidly with the large sound called “Wingk”, interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written statements of E and F;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] of the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act [the scope of punishment], the mitigation area (one month to eight months), [the person with special mitigation] of punishment (including efforts to recover from damage] [the decision of sentence] Defendant’s previous convictions, including those for interference with the defendant, committed violent crimes, and repeated the crime of this case, despite the previous convictions, two times of suspended sentence, and the previous convictions and two times of suspended sentence.

In addition, even if the defendant received a penalty payment notification by avoiding the disturbance in the restaurant of the victim of the first time at the time of the instant case, he/she again finds the restaurant of the damaged person and thereby interferes with his/her business.

However, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the injured person does not want the punishment against the accused and the reflective fact.