A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

From around 15:00 on the same day to 17:10 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) entered the D restaurant operated by the victim C (hereinafter “C”) in Ulsannam-gu, as a mixed customer; (b) and (c) took two soldiers from the D restaurant operated by the victim C (hereinafter “C”); (d) without any reason, the Defendant took a bath to the victim, “I am dead at will, without any reason, on the part of being drunk, of being drunk, of what she would be impreged, and of what she would be impreged,” and (e) took a heavy bath to the victim; and (e) took an unspecified number of customers who were able to be a customer at the said restaurant.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim's restaurant business by force over approximately two hours.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C Application of the police protocol protocol law

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order is that the Defendant has been sentenced to a fine of five times due to violence, damage, drunk driving, and the preparation of existing buildings and fire, etc., and again committed the instant crime despite the fact that the Defendant has been sentenced one time of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution). Among the criminal records, a majority of the criminal records against the instant victims are not good enough to commit the crime.

However, the defendant recognized his mistake and did not repeat the crime, and the defendant's act of interference with his work was discharged from damage and was relatively minor, and the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's act of interference with his work was not accompanied by violence.