A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant: (a) did not order the Victim D’s “E” restaurant operated by the Victim D in Chungcheongnam-si to sell the Victim 10 C in the victim’s restaurant without having ordered the Victim D to sell the Victim 10 C; (b)

1. On June 22, 2016 around 19:00 for the foregoing reasons, Gaca b, the restaurant at the above “E”, and 7-8 times as a drinking house, and bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bit

It is a change of fraud, which interferes with the victim's restaurant business by force, such as avoiding about 1 hour and 30 minutes of the disturbance, such as taking a bath with a large voice, and allowing customers in the restaurant to leave the restaurant;

2. On the same day, 20:50 re-cafeterias the above cafeterias at around 20:50 on the same day, and a cafeterias by hand booms, and whether the cafeterias can drink booms with this continuous pedal.

"Along with approximately 20 minutes of a disturbance, it interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force, such as avoiding a disturbance of approximately 20 minutes, allowing customers inside the restaurant to leave the restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment.

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes: The defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one year of protection observation by obstructing the performance of official duties by the court on January 30, 2015, and committed the instant crime even though the judgment became final and conclusive on February 7, 2015; the defendant again committed the instant crime during the suspended execution period; the defendant found the victim again due to the crime described in paragraph (1) of the judgment, which led to interference with business, and the degree of interference with business in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, such as interfering with business, the degree of power exercised by the defendant, and the time for continuing the crime: The above circumstances and age of the defendant recognized the instant crime: