A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:30 on May 13, 2019, the Defendant found at the main point of “D” operated by the victim C (the age of 45) in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the ground that the Defendant demanded the victim to pay damages to the damaged vehicle on or around May 10, 2019, the Defendant: (a) and (b) as the main point of “Is the fluor of excreta at the shop; (c) Is the fluor of excreta at the box; (d) Is the fluor of excreta at the box; and (c) I interfere with the victim’s main business by force by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant before the third trial;

1. Each protocol of examination of witness C and E of this Court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on the occurrence of accidents (Interference with business), investigation report (Attachment of cellphones or video files);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. Scope of punishment by law: One month to five years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment [the determination of a type of punishment] interference with business affairs [the category 1] interference with business affairs (the special sentencing person]: Reduction element of punishment: Non-compliance area of punishment [the scope of the recommended area and the recommended punishment] mitigated area, imprisonment with labor for one month or for eight months;

3. Although there are several criminal records against the defendant in the decision of sentence, it is reasonable to punish the defendant strictly considering that the defendant's mistake from investigative agency to the court of this case is consistent with his own mistake in view of the fact that the defendant is moving back to the crime of this case again, and that the defendant's mistake is sufficiently repented by evidence, etc., even if the crime is proved by evidence, etc., and it is hard to understand rather than by pening his mistake.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant is too late, that the defendant has agreed with the victim, and that the health status of the defendant is not good.