A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 24, 2015, around 16:45, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol to D restaurants operated by the victim C(56 years of age) of the building owned by the Defendant in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant brought a summary indictment for the crime of interference with business due to the act of smoking disturbance from D restaurants due to the act of smoking disturbance in the past; (b) during the dispute with the victim, the Defendant 112 report and continued to go beyond the victim’s arms by hand; and (c) the Defendant 2 police officers, who were dispatched after receiving 112 report, expressed the victim’s desire to enter the above restaurant by avoiding disturbance, thereby getting the victim to go back.

As a result, the defendant committed violence against the victim, boomed the victim, and interfered with the operation of the restaurant business of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on response to the 112 reported case;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Supreme Court Decision 201Do1895 Decided October 11, 2012, Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1895, Oct. 11, 2012). 1. The reason for sentencing a sentence of selective imprisonment was placed in the position of being punished by a fine due to a crime interfering with the business of the victim who committed prior to the instant case, and thus, it is highly likely that the Defendant committed the instant crime. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even though a number of violent crimes were committed, and the victim suffered from the instant crime, and the victim was deemed to have a great mental suffering. However, the circumstances in which the Defendant made efforts to recover from damage do not seem to be the circumstance in which the victim made efforts, and the victim still tried to punish the Defendant, while the Defendant is aged 64 years old, and other character, behavior, and pleading shown in the records and pleadings of this case.