A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

『2017 고단 676』 피고인은 2017. 2. 2. 22:00 경부터 같은 날 23:10 경까지 사이에 제주시 B에 있는 피해자 C(37 세, 여) 이 관리하는 ‘D 가요 주점’ 내에서, 특별한 이유 없이 피해자와 위 주점 종업원인 E에게 “ 사장 불러 라, 니 미 씨 발”, “ 개 같은 씨 발” 이라고 큰소리로 욕설을 하고, 술병을 들었다 놨다 하며 “ 사지를 찢어서 죽여 버리겠다” 고 위협하는 등 소란을 피워 위 주점에서 술을 마시던 손님들 로 하여금 불안감을 느껴 주점을 나가게 함으로써 위력으로 피해자의 주점 영업 업무를 방해하였다.

around 15:25 on December 16, 2016, the Defendant driven a Fworkst class car with approximately 100 meters alcohol concentration of about 0.127% from the 100-meter section to the front road of the “quasi-do Central Office of Han River,” located in the Han-si, Jeju-do, Jeju-do, to the Han-do, Han-do-ro, Han-do-ro 73.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highest 676"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. Investigation report (related to investigation by suspect G phone);

1. Investigation report (to hear the statements of employees of entertainment centers) 2017 Senior 986;

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Articles 148-2(2)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of drinking alcohol) of the Road Traffic Act, and the choice of imprisonment for each sentence;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. Interference with the reasoning for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the observation of protection and the provision of community service order is very bad to find out the main points without any particular reason and to interfere with the business of this case, such as abusiveing, threatening, etc., and the nature of the crime is very bad.

In addition, there was no agreement with the victim of the obstruction of business.

In addition, the defendant in 200.