A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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

On August 4, 2019, at around 05:50 on August 4, 2019, the Defendant: (a) stated that the victim C (the 46-year-old age) operated by the victim C (the 46-year-old age), who is an employee of the said cafeteria, made the Defendant wrong for the police officer called the said cafeteria by the act of disturbance; (b) stated that the Defendant was able to take a bath in large voice; and (c) made it difficult for the Defendant to bring about about 15 minutes of the disturbance by taking the cafeteria F and his/her daily activities as a customer of the said cafeteria.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act: The defendant has committed the instant crime again despite multiple previous crimes, and circumstances favorable to the defendant's failure to agree with the victim: The defendant has led to confession and reflect on the instant crime; the sentencing criteria, the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive of the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime; and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime.