If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant operated a restaurant business with the trade name “E” in a building located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was running a mixed business with the victim for about four years prior to the dispute.

On June 21, 2017, from around 00:30 to 03:40 on June 21, 2017, the Defendant was forced to move out by police officers who received a report to the wife of the victim, including the victim, while under the influence of alcohol in the above E restaurant.

Nevertheless, around 12:30 on June 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force for 9 hours and 30 minutes, by allowing the victim to open an entrance while under the influence of alcohol in front of the above E restaurant; (b) allowing the repair shop to open the entrance; (c) making it impossible to identify the victim’s name by refusing to do so; and (d) taking the cafeteria, the table, contact, the camera monitor, etc. into the restaurant, or viewing the urbly on the floor without permission, and allowing the victim to leave the restaurant by up to 22:00, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement by the defendant to the effect that the keys has opened a corrected restaurant and enters the restaurant, and that he has locked at the place;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion of the costs of lawsuit against the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act did not commit any act, such as: (i) the Defendant did not commit an act, such as breaking a misunderstanding, etc. within a restaurant, or viewing a scam on the floor, etc.; (ii) the Defendant is a joint proprietor of the above restaurant, since he was merely scambling a scam.