A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 23, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor by the Seoul Southern District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on February 17, 2015.

On October 5, 2016, at around 20:40 on October 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) took a bath at the D cafeteria operated by the victim C in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, without any particular reason; (b) obstructed the instant victim’s restaurant business by force, such as drinking the customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. C’s statement;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Previous convictions: Application of an inquiry letter, investigation report (verification of Defendant A’s repeated record) statute;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to ten years; and

2. Aggravation of the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment [the types of decisions] interference with business affairs [the special sentencing factors]: Cumulative repeated crimes of the same kind, mitigation factors: Basic area of the punishment base [the scope of the recommended and recommended punishment], six months from June to June.

3. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for interference with business on October 23, 2014 and completed the execution of the sentence on February 17, 2015, again commits the instant crime of this case for the same criminal within the repeated crime period, prior to the instant crime within the repeated crime period, was punished two times as a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, even before the said repeated crime was committed, and is subject to criminal punishment on several occasions by obstructing the performance of duties and obstructing the performance of official duties, it is deemed inevitable to sentence the Defendant.

On the other hand, when determining the term of punishment, the sentencing guidelines shall be based on the facts that the defendant made a confession of his/her mistake and reflects against him/her, the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and other conditions of sentencing specified in records and changes.