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 July 9, 2015, from around 23:00 to 24:00 of the same day, the Defendant was punished by “E” restaurant operated by the victim D, which is located in Cheongju-si, U.S., to “E” on the ground that he was punished by “the fact that the victim was injured on or around July 7, 2015,” and found him to drink and drink in the above restaurant while drinking tobacco in the above restaurant, and the above restaurant staff booms tobacco, and changed tobacco, “if a fine is imposed, it shall be done by the president, and if a fine is imposed, it shall be done by the president,” and “to the customers seated next to the above restaurant, it shall be caused by the victim’s threat of force, thereby hindering the victim’s business operation, and continuously discovered the victim’s frighting from the victim.”

“In doing so, assaulted the victim’s face by taking the victim’s hand and taking the victim’s hand.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of witnesses D in the fifth public trial records, and entry of witnesses F in the seventh public trial records;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting voluntary accompanying;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments for each crime);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution ( Taking into account factors of sentencing favorable to the following reasons):

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding the observation of protection and the order to provide community service and attend lectures

1. The Defendant alleged that the instant restaurant smokes tobacco in the instant restaurant, but did not interfere with the restaurant business by force, by “the president sarbling the president,” or “the sarbling of the customers,” etc., leading them to customers.”